Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beecher's Bible


 * 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 keep. Liz Read! Talk! 19:46, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Beecher's Bible

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

While it is a well known term, I just don't think there's enough substantial content here for a stand alone article-- the article already feels like it's grasping at straws with the section on the Beecher family. Suggest redirecting somewhere, either to a section in Bleeding Kansas (preferred), Henry Ward Beecher, or Sharps rifle. I would love to see more coverage that I missed be discovered, but I haven't found it. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:19, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:43, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 17:31, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment The article needs work, that is true. But it is quite a notable term taken from the events that changed the political landscape in America. Lightburst (talk) 17:31, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That’s all good, I’m just simply not able to find coverage of the term that would allow this article to expand beyond a dicdef and I think it would be better for the term to be a redirect where it can be presented in the full context. Eddie891 Talk Work 18:42, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the message . I am working on it now. Added a few references already; at least we can present the best version of the article. Lightburst (talk) 18:53, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I’m going to head over to the university library near me and check out their books on Beecher/bleeding Kansas as well, perhaps more will emerge…Eddie891 Talk Work 19:02, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, if this is kept as a stand alone, it should be moved back to Beecher’s Bibles— it seems extremely uncommon to use the singular in this case. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:02, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That makes sense, and I was thinking the same, as all the references use Beecher's Bibles Lightburst (talk) 19:35, 4 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Bleeding Kansas where the key information here is already included. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:33, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename Beecher's Bibles I have done some work on the article and added historical references, background, and news clippings. I believe that this is an important term and our article goes beyond a WP:DICDEF. There is enough coverage to warrant an article and to show that our article meets WP:GNG. Lightburst (talk) 19:41, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * There appears to be controversy over how it got its name (on talk page). A traditional view and revisionist view might work. The revisionist view actually seems more reasonable than the story of hiding the guns in a box of bibles which is a bit too good a story. Uncovering stuff like this is what Wikipedia excels at. And what Internet Archive excels at, old out of print material brought back to light.  --  Green  C  07:40, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment
 * Beecher's Bible: 310
 * Beecher's Bibles: 2,538
 * -- Green  C  07:02, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for many years I have had a hobby of  researching John Brown (abolitionist). I have also hunted down the serial numbers of the Sharps Carbines were used in the John Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry. To that end I have many books on the subject of Sharps Carbines. The Sellers book that I added to this article is the most comprehensive accounting with careful research, and it was a book that cost me much $. I see they can be had cheaper now on Ebay. I bought that particular book because he lists serial numbers and Sharps factory shipping records. He uses congressional testimony and some primary source letters from those who were involved in the process. His book says the crates were marked "Books and Bibles". Lightburst (talk) 13:26, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This source contains a lot of information to expand the article. It's ca. 1907 certain things need verification. Whatever the case, it shows how in-depth and complex this episode was, more than a nickname for some guns. -The article could be significantly expanded. - Green  C  05:46, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Relisting to consider Redirect or Keeping article Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:54, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * you ever heard of these? -Indy beetle (talk) 06:25, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look through my print sources after work today. Hog Farm Talk 12:06, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Checked the indexes of several print sources I suspected to be relevant, turned up nothing. Hog Farm Talk 03:56, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, although a merge to Bleeding Kansas would also be a defensible outcome. Of the sources in the article, I can't access Sellers or Strand, but the Tribune ref is primary and doesn't count, I wouldn't consider Rosa or the Hartford Courant pieces to be substantial enough to count towards notability.  That leaves the Guns in American Society, KSHS, and this, although the latter's entry is more about Beecher than the rifles themselves. The Isely 1907 source helps with the dicdef concerns, which I have as well. I can't access the Sellers work although it may be significant as well.  Guns in American Society also quotes Allan Nevins regarding this topic, so presumably Nevins has some useful content.  I'm not all that impressed with the fact that we're mainly avoiding dicdef issues because of a 115 year-old source, though. Hog Farm Talk 04:27, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep, seems well and diversly sourced now, appears to have been moved into a saved position after the nomination. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:20, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep I added:
 * It's a significant source, in length and content, academic journal, and often cited by other sources. The age is a factor but many old sources are often cited, even remain authoritative on certain things. --  Green  C  04:52, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a significant source, in length and content, academic journal, and often cited by other sources. The age is a factor but many old sources are often cited, even remain authoritative on certain things. --  Green  C  04:52, 18 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep Sources have been found and work on the article has been done.  D r e a m Focus  13:25, 18 September 2022 (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.