Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John E.P Daingerfield


 * 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.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 01:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

John E.P Daingerfield

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable, no reliable sources. His residence may be quite a sight (and Google finds several hits for the house mentioning Daingerfield as one of the owners), but he has not received any attention. Zero Google Scholar hits. Huon (talk) 14:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

How do I respond to this note properly? Do I do it on the talk page or somewhere else? In the meantime, I'd like to say that I am a newbie here, so be patient with me.

I think Daingerfield is a notable person of the Civil War, even if his importance doesn't extend to major textbooks. He is an eye witness to the Battle of Harper's Ferry (there's a reference and a photo of the pdf on his page), having been a "prisoner" of John Brown, and he is a historical person so far as how the armory of Harper's Ferry was moved to Fayetteville. The house he bought in Fayetteville is on the National Register of Historic Homes, and his biography is partially printed on the sign for the "Civil War Trails" in front of his house.

Perhaps google scholar doesn't list Daingerfield because he is so hard to find information about him. Maybe wikipedia would be of assistance.

In addition, anyone looking for information on Elliot Daingerfield may find it helpful to understand that Elliot was a painter in a military man's home.

kelliejojo (talk) 03:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The article he wrote seems significant, published in major publication of the era. But I could be convinced otherwise....66.65.85.250 (talk) 04:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Google books shows his article was cited in two recent scholarly history books on the period. Not to mention the fact that it got a favorable review in an 1886 issue of the "Georgia Eclectic Medical Journal. :-) Google scholar also shows citations to his article including one from 2002. Crypticfirefly (talk) 07:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - I am aware of Daingerfield's account of John Brown's raid, but I'm not aware of any reliable secondary sources about Daingerfield himself. I was also unable to read anything of that review except the one line Google Books gives as a preview. He's an early case of WP:BLP1E; John Brown's raid is notable, Daingerfield isn't. Concerning kelliejojo's comment: I agree that it's "hard to find information about him", but that's precisely why we shouldn't have an article. Wikipedia requires sources, and if sources can't be found, the article has to go. Huon (talk) 11:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Then I think the thing to do is have an article that is about both his account of the raid (which seems to be an undeniably notable account) as well as the man himself. Crypticfirefly (talk) 05:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think we should rather mention the eyewitness account in the article on John Brown (abolitionist), probably in the "posthumous view of Brown's character" section. Given that we don't even have an article on the raid, an article on an account of the raid seems out of proportion. Huon (talk) 10:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  22:16, 9 September 2008 (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.