Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mizpah Creek Incidents


 * 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   no consensus. The discussion has not yielded a consensus for a particular action regarding the article. NorthAmerica1000 05:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Mizpah Creek Incidents

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The Mizpah Creek Incidents is a very minor incident which has not received the attention necessary to support a Wikipedia article. There are no Ghits for "Mizpah Creek Incidents" outside Wikipedia, no Book hits.

Considering that this article was created after a series of similar articles on Powder River County history by the same editor had been deleted through AfD (Powder River Telegraph Station, Leopold Hohman, Homan's Rock, Battle of Crazy Woman's Fork, Battle of Alkali Creek (1865)); with one other redirected (Battle of the Little Powder River), it may be time to restrict this editor against creating further such articles, but that is not something that an AfD discussion alone can decide... Fram (talk) 12:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC) Fram (talk) 12:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:24, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete -- a skirmish (even one with fatal results) between about 15 men on each side hardly merits an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterkingiron (talk • contribs)
 * See further comment below. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:20, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - there are books that mention a minor skirmish; see here. Bearian (talk) 21:53, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The only result I see when I follow your link is for "MIZPAH® Relationship Ring‎" :-) Regionalised Google results are a pest, one aspect of Net Neutrality that clearly doesn't exist. Fram (talk) 06:07, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Keep —(bolded keep added by Spinningspark for clarity) . The Mizpah Creek Incidents resulted in the first Montana Territorial Court case east of Bozeman, with a reporter present from the New York Times. That alone should be important enough to not delete the page. I don't know why all some Wikipedia Users seems to want to do is to delete others pages. All I am trying to do is to improve Wikipedia, and make more people aware of certain historical events, and I don't intend to offend anyone. I believe that the article should be left alone. Sincerely Powder River 1876 (talk) 04:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. — Joaquin008  ( talk ) 15:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. So, according to user:Peterkingiron this does not deserve an article because only 15 men took part in the incident?  Really?  That's not how we judge the importance of a military action (or anything) on Wikipedia as far as deserving an article goes.  User:Bearian says that there are mentions in books and then votes delete.  How is that a rationale for deletion?  Besides the historic notability of the court case mentioned above, it seems to have escaped everybodies notice that Glover was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor for his part.  That alone speaks for notability.  The nominator claims there are no ghits, but I am seeing numerous books covering the events. The Life of Yellowstone Kelly and The Plainsmen of the Yellowstone: A History of the Yellowstone Basin both devote a page or two to the events.  Deeds of Valor appears to devote several pages, although only snippet view is available.  Many other books cleary have coverage, but it is hard to tell how much from snippet view.  There is also this from the Second Cavalry Association Regimental History Center. SpinningSpark 20:01, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I've just realised that the Yellowstone Kelly book I linked above is discussing the Battle of Pumpkin Creek in which the same Sgt Glover is involved at almost the same location and, even more confusingly, his Congressional Medal of Honor is for both actions. However, I also found this newspaper coverage (fourth column, second story under "Military matters") and I would be amazed if there is not a lot more contemporary newspaper coverage to find. SpinningSpark 20:26, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 05:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep The claim of the nomination that there are no book hits for this topic is false. This seems to be due to poor search technique as it only took a few seconds of searching to find Forgotten Fights: Little-known Raids and Skirmishes on the Frontier, 1823 to 1890 and Deeds of Valor: how America's Heroes Won the Medal of Honor.  Andrew D. (talk) 13:48, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't call "using the exact article title" a "poor search technique". There seem to be no sources that call these events the "Mizpah Creek Incidents" or that group them together as one notable series of incidents. Fram (talk) 14:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh come on Fram, the series of incidents are
 * Indians kill and wound soldiers
 * Soldiers hunt down those indians
 * Indians taken prisoner after a fight
 * Indians handed over for trial
 * Indians hang themselves
 * How are those events not grouped together? The Plainsmen of the Yellowstone certainly covers this as one continuous narrative. Deeds of Valor appears to do so too.  The fact that you can't find the exact title in a search is not grounds for deletion.  It might be grounds for renaming, but it's not grounds for deletion.  And yes, you do have a poor search technique.  I would say the title is descriptive rather than an actual proper name and there is a case to be made for lower-casing the word incidents.  With descriptive titles one should not expect to get a lot of hits with the search term in quotation marks.  It took me just seconds to think up more productive search terms. Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 15:25, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

LnBkNRd72.36.56.193 (talk) 01:59, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep There seem to be two distinct styles in the critiques. One appears to have an interest in making Wiki better, adding sources, helping substantiate facts and making suggestions to the builder who appears to have a lot of interest in these subjects. The other is perhaps a self appointed expert who has been undone with a few seconds of research by the advocates. Fram seems to take pride in listing articles of Powder River 1876 which he has gotten deleted. It appears Fram is aggressively stalking the contributor for some reason. As Andrew D. and Spinningspark make clear, Fram's reasons are spurious. (Spinningspark, do you ride stop and turn around palominos?) Simply by the arguments presented here, I might suggest a look at the articles of Powder River 1876 which Fram has gotten deleted and see if they might also be made worthy, if indeed they are not now. One suggestion of Fram's, with a minor alteration, may be worth taking. Prohibiting Fram from nominating, not worthy of Wikipedia.
 * "Agressively stalking the contributor for some reason"? If you see many articles created by the same author on non-notable topics, then it is only logical and expected that you keep an eye on further creations. Feel free to revisit the other AfD's, that is your right. I brought all these to AfD for community discussion, so it's not as if I was the only one advocating for deletion or as if I was doing it secretly. But if you think bringing Leopold Hohman and the like to DRV is worthwhile, be my guest... Fram (talk) 07:39, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment -- I think one has to draw the line somewhere. We have recently had nominations for an incident in Scottish clan warfare and now for one from the Wild West (I watch history AFDs).  I think we need a discussion as to how small a battle needs to be to be WP-notable.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:20, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If it's discussed in reliable sources, then it's notable. By definition.  There can be no argument about that, that's the way Wikipedia policy works.  Whether that should be the criterion is another question altogether.  If this were my personal encyclopaedia, I would set some very different criteria.  But it's not, and if you wish to change the basic policy that needs a much bigger discussion, and it would go way beyond military matters.  In the meantime, this AFD should be settled on the basis of existing policy.  Notability is not affected by the size of the engagement. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 16:29, 24 December 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.