Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Porter (7th Cavalry)


 * 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. ‑Scottywong | chatter _ 19:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

James Porter (7th Cavalry)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG, just getting killed by Indians, even in the company of a famous general (although he got famous because he died by Indians), does not make some notable. The Banner talk 13:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep, this articles passes WP:GNG because The Battle of the Little Bighorn is one of the most famous battles in American history, and because of this Porter is mentioned in various secondary sources, some of which are cited in the article.  He was one of the first verified casualties of this battle, which was front page news around the world. Most of the other officers have wiki articles.Swampyank (talk) 18:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * These sources were not there when I nominated it! But I will take a look at your 22 edits... The Banner  talk 20:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * To my opinion, FindAGrave is not a reliable source in relation to the biography. The Banner talk 18:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem, added another source.Swampyank (talk) 04:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You can find a lot of information in the mention that "(...)Smith, Porter, and Reily were found with their men (...)". This WP:SYNTH and/or WP:OR. The Banner talk 13:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There's at least as many sources that say his body was never found and this source was not present at the burials. Swampyank (talk) 19:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, the way you have sourced it, makes the article completely unreliable. That erbzine article mentions the name Porter just once, and you use it to source all kinds of things! You are inventing things not backed up by the sources. The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 04:05, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You are exaggerating, but I included quotations to show you that I am not inventing things from these various sources. Swampyank (talk) 23:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have removed everything that was speculation, sourced by a passing mention, or sourced by books that did not mention him at all (an index is always handy). The rest of the sources were out of my reach. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 00:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not stating explicitly that Porter was the unidentified officer who narrowly escaped before committing suicide, but the witnesses state that there was an officer who came from near Porter's (Company I's) eastern area in the final moments of the battle. My sourcing for describing the last actions of Company I is hardly unreliable, as you stated when you removed them.  In fact Donovan's "A Terrible Glory:  Custer And The Little Bighorn" is peer reviewed, and the review states that my source is "by far, the clearest, best researched and most accurate account of Custer’s last stand and its aftermath. It is probably the most objective."  See: Canadian Army Journal Vol. 12.2 Summer 2009 http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/caj/documents/vol_12/iss_2/CAJ_Vol12.2_24_e.pdf  I don't want to engage in a "Last Stand" with you over this minutiae.Swampyank (talk) 18:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The whole story about him making his escape is plain guesswork. The accounts are only stories of the type I know somebody who..., third or fourth hand sources. It is completely unclear who made his escape. There is no substantial evidence that it was Porter at all. So why put this guesswork in the article? And about the book: it is just a book review published by an army magazine. It is not peer reviewed by historians. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 11:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC) In my opinion, due to the guesswork and other unreliable sources used before, the whole article is unreliable. Every source should be checked to verify if it truly covers what it claims to cover.
 * Check every source I've cited. They're all accessible online as well as in print. Despite much speculation that Porter nearly escaped, in this wikipedia article I'm clearly not stating that Porter was the officer who escaped before committing suicide. I state that he was unidentified officer in the eastern area. The Native American witnesses stated that there was an unidentified officer who rode off from near Porter's location (Company I's) in the eastern area in the final moments of the battle, which is relevant to describing the action of Porter's company in the last moments. My sourcing for describing the last actions of Company I is hardly unreliable.  Even leaving out Captain Charles King's recording of the Native American accounts, with which you obviously take issue, there is the 2008 Donovan book (Little, Brown, & Co.) which is accepted in the academic community as a trustworthy source.


 * Not only is Donovan's "A Terrible Glory: Custer And The Little Bighorn" reviewed positively in the Canadian Army Journal (Vol. 12.2 Summer 2009 http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/caj/documents/vol_12/iss_2/CAJ_Vol12.2_24_e.pdf )
 * but also in other reviews: California Literary Review, Ed Voves, September 25th, 2008 http://calitreview.com/1189,
 * University of Nebraska, 1-1-2009, Great Plains Quarterly, http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2199&context=greatplainsquarterly and more....

Swampyank (talk) 00:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" />
 * Keep, clearly notable per refs, plus I'm sure that more is out there. BTW, Custer was famous for being one of the youngest generals in the Civil War, prior to the massacre.   GregJackP   Boomer!   05:14, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#ff55ff 0em 0em 0.8em,#55ffff -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#ffff55 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#ffffff">Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:38, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" /> <hr style="width:55%;" />
 * Merge to Battle of the Little Bighorn. This is one of the most significant events in American/Native history, and one minor officer who is a footnote in a history book should not get their own article. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 10:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" />
 * Keep per above. Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 10:27, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete unless the aim is to add an article for each officer present at the Little Bighorn. Custer's status isn't relevant to Porter, IMO, and he doesn't seem to have done much of note on his own except for getting killed at the Little Bighorn. Intothatdarkness 17:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The Battle of the Little Bighorn is probably the most mythic battle in the the 300 years of the Indian Wars in North America, and one of the last. The relatively small number of officers in the battle have been portrayed in books and films, featured in museums, and discussed in dozens and dozens of books as part of the myth of the West. They seem notable to me! Adding an article for each one who is extensively written about doesn't seem like a bad idea. There were only about a dozen officers killed, and most of them have articles. There were extensive efforts for decades to identify these officers bodies. Swampyank (talk) 00:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * In your opinion, perhaps. But every article is judged on its own merits, so it does not matter that other officers have an article or not. And beside that, I just do see anything what makes this officer notable. Dying is a famous battle is not enough to make an officer notable. And why are there articles about the players on the Sioux side? Unwanted due to an US-centered POV? The English Wikipedia is for an international audience, not to promote officers who were at the wrong time at the wrong place. Even "Sam Huxley" has a greater claim for fame. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 10:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC) I hope that name rings a bell, if not see Battle Cry (Leon Uris novel)
 * I know you'd like to remove my work on this article, but I've cited many secondary sources, and Porter was a frequently written about officer in this famous battle albeit on the American side. Porter as a leader (officer) educated at West Point is notable for his participation in this battle, not his connection to Custer alone, and his death was publicized across the world at the time. There's actually sizable book focusing just on Porter, which is in the West Point Library, from which if I get the opportunity I'd like to glean more information about Porter's specific actions in these battles for this article (assuming this article survives your deletion request). If you are interested in the Sioux, there are some great wiki articles on some of the Sioux leaders and documented participants in the battle (besides the obvious, Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse), see: Category:People of the Great Sioux War of 1876.  Feel free to create more information on Sioux leaders, I certainly don't have any objection. I'd love to read them, actually, despite the accusations of having me having American POV issues for creating this article. Certainly, many of the actions of both sides were often inhumane. Anyway, I don't think wikipedia has a space issue that I know of. Swampyank (talk) 01:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Any officer at the Little Bighorn will generate a large number of citations simply based on their participation (or presence) at that battle. What were Porter's specific contributions to the battle of the Little Bighorn? We don't know. His main military service seems to have been on Reconstruction duty (based on the information provided in the article), which doesn't make him remarkable in any way. Sorry, but given the amount of stuff generated about the Little Bighorn over the years it's perfectly possible to create an impressively-cited article about just about any military member who was there (and even a horse or two for good measure). Does that make them notable on their own? I think the fact that most of the citations in this article come from general works about the battle itself and not from works relating directly to Porter speak tellingly to that point. He does, however, serve to illustrate the relative lack of combat and field experience in the 7th Cavalry prior to the Little Bighorn, which might make this worthy of a merge to the main Little Bighorn article. Intothatdarkness 20:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The coverage makes sense since there were only eleven officers leading the troops at the battle, so they are discussed in many texts. Porter's specific leadership and strategy during the battle is detailed in several books including: Charles Kuhlman, Ph.D's Legend into history (Old Army Press, 1977) pg. 196, where he describes "the intervention of Lieutenant Porter in bringing up Troop "I" and posting it so that the first platoon stood massed above the entrance to the ravine. This placed it squarely in the rear of the warriors Calhoun and Crittenden were fighting, compelling them to seek cover and putting them out of the fight." Swampyank (talk) 04:37, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * They are, IMO, only notable due to their link to Custer. This is a common feature for any man assigned to the 7th Cavalry, officer or enlisted. That makes the battle notable, but not necessarily every person who was involved in the battle. Porter was a company level officer who appears to have accomplished nothing of note during his time with the regiment (most of the linked sources deal with the battle in general or speculation regarding when/where Porter was killed). I'd be persuaded if there was more to Porter's service than this, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Intothatdarkness 20:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I should say I'd support a merge as proposed above, though. Intothatdarkness 20:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Passed WP:GNG and WP:BIO without issue. The article is also meticulously referenced. And Adoil Descended (talk) 03:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep The article is well-referenced and pertains to a subject that is integral to American history.JZeus (talk) 01:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment As I mentioned above, it's relatively easy to create a heavily-referenced article about any military man who happened to be at the Little Bighorn. If we're talking notability, I think we should look at the nature and not the number of those references. In this article, most of them are to general works about the battle and not specific books or articles about Porter. I'd be more convinced by Keeps if there were a number of sources that dealt specifically with Porter, especially anything covering his time with the regiment prior to LBH. Intothatdarkness 21:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment supporting keep His biography is notable enough to be featured in other encyclopedias (isn't wikipedia supposed to be the most extensive encyclopedia?), see: Encyclopedia of Frontier Biography: P-Z by Dan L. Thrapp (U of Nebraska Press, 1988), pg. 1163. There is also other research and exclusive writing about Porter, including a 150 page book about him at West Point's Library (http://usmalibrary.usma.edu) "Lieut. Porter and his family of Strong, Franklin County, Maine / a monograph by Andrew J. Johnston." (1992) Swampyank (talk) 23:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No, we don't want to be the most extensive encyclopedia, we want to built a reliable encyclopaedia. Not a dictionary of fallen soldiers. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 00:49, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Right and that's not what the Encyclopedia of Frontier Biography is either. Take a look at it. Porter's biography is on page 1163 in that encyclopedia, as well as in other books cited in the wiki article, such as The Custer Companion: A Comprehensive Guide to the Life of George Armstrong page 212. Not every soldier at the Little Bighorn has a biography in these books. Why not share information? Swampyank (talk) 03:36, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge & Redirect, see WP:NOTPAPER, the real question here is whether the subject has received sufficient significant coverage to be notable per WP:GNG. It appears that the subject has received sufficient significant coverage to pass notability, but the notability appears to be primarily regarding the event of the Battle of Little Bighorn, and thus the subject falls under WP:BLP1E. As such the common outcome is to merge & redirect the content to the event article. If it can be shown that the subject is notable for other things outside of the Battle, then I would see the need for a standalone biography article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:04, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * In response: Notability (people) states "On the other hand, if an event is of sufficient importance, even relatively minor participants may require their own articles, for example Howard Brennan, a witness to the JFK assassination." For consistency's sake, I'm assuming that you would want to merge all of the other killed officers into the Little Bighorn article: William W. Cooke, George Edwin Lord, James Madison DeWolf, Thomas Custer, Henry Moore Harrington, Algernon Smith, George Yates, Donald McIntosh, Myles Keogh James Calhoun, John J. Crittenden. Seems like this would make the article unnecessarily unwieldy by eliminating each officer's article and adding all of that background information into battle article (NOTPAPER, which you cite, states "Keeping articles to a reasonable size is important for Wikipedia's accessibility"). Just my opinion on it. Swampyank (talk) 04:50, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP1E also states If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. Okay, the Battle at Little Bighorn is notable, no doubt about that. But is Porter's role in the battle a significant one? The only thing we know for sure is that he died! He could have been the first one to die, he could have been the last one to die, he could have been fighting bravely, he could have tried to run like a coward. We just don't know, because no one (?) returned from the battlefield on the US-side. It definitely would be fitting to add him to a "List of fallen soldiers at the Battle of Little Bighorn", but not for a stand alone article. Dying doe not make someone notable. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 14:53, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Right, as I mentioned above Porter was one of the eleven officers leading the troops at the battle (see their wiki articles above). Porter's specific leadership and strategy during the battle is detailed in several books including: Charles Kuhlman, Ph.D's Legend into history (Old Army Press, 1977) pg. 196, where he describes "the intervention of Lieutenant Porter in bringing up Troop "I" and posting it so that the first platoon stood massed above the entrance to the ravine. This placed it squarely in the rear of the warriors Calhoun and Crittenden were fighting, compelling them to seek cover and putting them out of the fight." He was a West Point graduate, and as an elite officer, special efforts were made to find his body, and his death was assumed by his bloody shirt, and there are many articles discussing him. There's circumstantial evidence about him making a final effort to escape the Little Bighorn.  There's more information on him than the sources I've cited in the article, and which I will add once editing is allowed again. Swampyank (talk) 15:36, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If the subjects only receive significant coverage for only the one even, Battle of Little Bighorn, then WP:BLP1E applies and a redirect and merger would be the proper course of action. Same would go with all the other officers mentioned, as none are independently notable as outlined in WP:SOLDIER and it is debatable if any played a "Played an important role" in the Battle (as outlined by others in this AfD). Now if they have received significant coverage for other events, then BLP1E no longer applies. Each of the officer's listed deserve an independent review if that is the case. Has 1LT Porter received significant coverage for events other than the Battle of Little Bighorn?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm unaware of any substantial coverage of Porter outside of LBH, honestly. Contending that Porter was an "elite" officer just based on his graduating from West Point isn't accurate by any sense. And if we're honest about it, any discussion of an officer's actions at the Little Bighorn after Martini left the column is going to be speculation. In theory one could take all the officers mentioned by Swampyank above and lump them into an "Officers Killed at the Little Bighorn" article. Intothatdarkness 15:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That would make a great alternative to outright deletion of all those biography articles. It gives them each their due weight within the aspect of leadership of the United States Army forces during the battle, without giving them undue weight if their content is merged un-summarized into the article about the battle.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I honestly think that would be my preferred option. It does recognize the importance of the LBH as a whole without skewing the overall importance (in a full career sense) of the officers involved. Intothatdarkness 18:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I am assuming that you are considering the Little Bighorn Battle less significant than the JFK assassination per the analogy in the discussion above/below, which states that sometimes a minor figure can merit their own article if the event is significant enough, and Porter's role was active in the battle, so probably not minor at all. I doubt a merge would be practical or popular with the watchers of the Little Bighorn article, as there are eleven officer's articles to merge. I'm still firmly against it. Swampyank (talk) 00:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Depending on your POV of history regading the Plains Wars the Battle of Little Bighorn is either a great tragedy or a something to be celebrated. That being said the Assassination of JFK is the killing of a head of state. This is at the same level as the Assassination of Abraham Lincoln to the Execution of Saddam Hussein or Suicide of Adolf Hitler. As events go, all of these deaths of heads of state received considerable persistent significant coverage. The death of the subject, one of hundreds who died in the battle, in the end does not make a major impact.
 * As tragic as it maybe, this is why whenever an article about a posthumously awarded Distinguished Service Cross or Silver Star is brought up to AfD it is normally struck down per WP:NOTMEMORIAL and other essays, guidelines, and policies. The death of the subject is significant to someone or many someones, but unfortunately (often) their deaths have little impact outside of that group.
 * Therefore, a merger into an article about those officers maybe the best hope of some form of content retention. As very often outright deletion is the normal outcome.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I still don't understand this show-down to delete a well-sourced article with dozens of sources over one-hundred and thirty years discussing this leader at the Little Bighorn. Most of the battle participants are not as well-documented as James Porter, who has been written about by dozens of historians. To merge all of the articles about the Cavalry officers and Indian leaders (to be fair) into the Little Bighorn article seems unrealistic and unnecessary to me. What harm are you are concerned about if this much written about officer has an article? In the end, no one is significant, when this planet ends. Let's just stick to the sources and let Porter survive in wikipedia ;) Swampyank (talk) 05:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The point remains that no one has demonstrated that Porter did anything of note aside from die at the LBH. As mentioned before I would certainly not be opposed (and would support) an article that focused on officers killed at the Little Bighorn. That would encompass Porter, Calhoun, and others, and would not be a part of the existing Little Bighorn article. Intothatdarkness 18:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Porter was one of the eleven officers leading a company in one of the most famous and last battles of the American Indian Wars. Historians have written about his role in leading the troops in the battle based upon the evidence left behind, including the physical evidence and Indian testimonies.  Before this most famous battle, he served in the South fighting the Ku Klux Klan.  Different things were named after him including a battery, a organization branch, and several historical fiction characters in novels. A book was written about him, which is in the U.S. Military libraries. Years after his death, his wife received a special pension from the U.S. Congress because of his special service as an officer at the LB. There are dozens of sources discussing him at the LB. And even if there were fewer sources, how is this harming anything and unhelpful? You really want to merge all the Indian warriors at the LB and the eleven officers into the LB article or a separate article? How is this helpful? It seems unreasonable to me, but you know my feelings on the logic of this already, but after twenty-five days, I have no doubt that this fruitless debate will continue. Swampyank (talk) 03:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keogh was the commander of Company I, not Porter. The book you're referring to in the West Point library is a spiral bound piece held nowhere else that appears to be self-published and a work of family history, not a scholarly work. I'm also not sure that you're separating this Porter from a number of other famous Army Porters when you're talking about the legacy. Pensions from Congress for LBH veterans were not unusual, either. While I understand that you have an interest in Porter, he really isn't that notable...no more so than Calhoun, likely less than Keogh, and so on. Intothatdarkness 14:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, disregarding arguendo the U.S. Congress' special act for Porter's widow, and disregarding this one book about Porter, which I don't even use in the article (because I haven't read it yet), what about the other dozen plus sources cited, which you can even look up online on Google Books? Have you looked them up? Regarding Porter's significance, Thomas Hatch writes: "Lt. Porter actually commanded I Company on the battlefield." And further Dr. Charles Kuhlman, writes about "the intervention of Lieutenant Porter in bringing up Troop "I" and posting it so that the first platoon stood massed above the entrance to the ravine. This placed it squarely in the rear of the warriors Calhoun and Crittenden were fighting, compelling them to seek cover and putting them out of the fight." Both of these published sources describe Porter's leadership in significant action at the Little Bighorn based on physical evidence and Native American testimony analyzed by secondary source authors. Perhaps Calhoun, another officer, also should have an article if you think he's significant? Also you never responded about how this merger or deletion is beneficial? Swampyank (talk) 23:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Question: Why is BLP1E being discussed in regards to somebody who died at the Little Bighorn? - The Bushranger One ping only 08:23, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression, that although the subject obviously is not living, that when a subject is notable (receives significant coverage) for one event, BLP1E still applies, living or dead. I maybe wrong, but that is what I think.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Because dying at Little Bighorn is his only claim of fame. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 19:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems that the stricter scrutiny was required for biographies of living people because of potential slander/libel issues. As I mentioned above, if the event is a very significant historical event and not just a one-time news flash, then as Notability (people) states "if an event is of sufficient importance, even relatively minor participants may require their own articles, for example Howard Brennan, a witness to the JFK assassination." Hard to argue with all of the coverage of Porter, that Brennan is more significant of a historical figure. Swampyank (talk) 00:51, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The difference is that Brennans minor role was of great importance. Porter, excuse the wording, just died! <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 02:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * For a dead person WP:BIO1E is probably more appropriate. --Staberinde (talk) 16:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - well-documented by significant coverage in many reliable secondary sources means that he is notable. Bearian (talk) 21:02, 29 January 2013 (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.