Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of the Little Powder River


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect to Powder River Expedition (1865). There is no clear consensus here to merge or delete and given the multiple relistings, I don't expect any more comments to com in. Therefore I am redirecting this to Powder River Expedition (1865). Any content worth merging there is still available in the article history. Randykitty (talk) 11:35, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Battle of the Little Powder River

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A "battle" that hasn't received any attention from reliable sources at all. Either it is known under another name, or it normally not named at all as it was an unimportant skirmish among many others. No Google Books sources, not even for the combination of the river and the date.

The editor of the article seems intent on using Wikipedia as a first publisher of his research (see his other deleted articles and articles at AfD), but that is explicitly not what Wikipedia is intended for. Fram (talk) 07:47, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: This engagement is mentioned on page 215 of . --Mike Cline (talk) 10:49, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It looks to me as if that source is discussing the Battle of Dry Creek (1865) of 8 september, not the one up for deletion of two days later. The source explicitly mentions 8 September, and "3000 Sioux", which matches the 2,000 to 4,000 mentioned in the Dry Creek article, but not the 100-300 mentioned in the Little Powder River article. Fram (talk) 11:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree -Mike Cline (talk) 13:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge into Powder River Expedition (1865). It's not that these engagements didn't occur. Its a question of whether or not there's sufficient sourcing and content to warrant a separate article.  I don't think this represents WP:OR.  The engagement is already covered in the primary article, so a merge seems the right answer (although the tangible result is the same). --Mike Cline (talk) 13:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. No indication that I can find that anybody recorded this as a "battle". Clarityfiend (talk) 02:26, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  D u s t i *Let's talk!* 00:34, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:49, 2 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.