Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Montana in the American Civil War


 * 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. I don't see any reason to keep this AFD going any longer, especially since nobody other than the nominator has brought up any reasons to delete the article. I doubt this AFD even would have been filed if the article had been started by someone other than, whom has been having a dispute with. AFDs aren't a way of resolving disputes between editors. Elkman (Elkspeak) 22:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Montana in the American Civil War

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

Reason doncram (talk) 19:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Article does not meet basic criteria for Wikipedia notability. Author is a self-professed DYK medal seeker and Civil War enthusiast, but it does not follow that GEOGRAPHIC REGION x CIVIL WAR = notable. Article shows little/no notability. doncram (talk) 19:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I just deleted from article far-fetched claim that Confederate soldiers were mining for gold. doncram (talk) 19:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * But you didn't check the references first. You even say so in your edit summary. Joeblow179350 (talk) 20:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The sentence i deleted was "In Broadwater County, Montana, in the central portion of the state, Confederate soldiers found a vein of gold eight miles west of Townsend, Montana. The immediate area was named Confederate Gulch in their honor. It was said to be among the "largest and richest of the placer diggings" within the state. "  That is correct, i did not check the reference as I noted in my edit summary.  However, the circumstances are that the article is composed and put up for DYK by a self-professed DYK medal-seeker who I have found to have overstated claims in numerous other nominations.  And I strongly believe that the claim that it was Confederate soldiers is wildly overstated.  It implies that there was a Confederate army unit operating in Montana.  Possibly there were persons who deserted the Confederate army to go mining came here, or possibly there were persons who later joined the Confederate army.  But it is nonsense to imply that currently enlisted Confederate soldiers were there to mine, suggesting they were there to gather riches to be shipped to the CSA to fight the war.  It was so obviously a misstatement that I deleted it rather than add a "fact" tag to the statement. doncram (talk) 20:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - First off, if you have a problem with an editors actions take it up with them instead of using AFD's to make your point. 2nd of all, nothing wrong with trying to get DYK's, it encourages article writing and expansion of this project.  3rd, the article is cited and is not without precedence as there are many other similar articles. I see no reason to delete this article. Chris  lk02  Chris Kreider 19:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Responding: point 1, AFD is the right place to argue notability of this article. Point 2, fine, trying to get DYK's is okay, but that does not justify the notability of this article.  Point 3: "there are many similar articles":  it is the author's own template or modifications to template that create GEOGRAPHIC REGION x CIVIL WARa  .  It is entirely appropriate to discuss the notability of this geographic region x civil war article here.  Have you read the article?  It is falling all over itself to explain that, factually, there is no importance to the article, i believe because there is none.  doncram (talk) 19:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * First off, you are welcomne to dispute notability here, that is good. It is bad when half of your reasoning is attcking the editor who created it vs. making your case about notability.  AFD should be about the content, no tthe editor.  2nd of all Yes, I have read the article and sure it might be lacking in sveral areas.  However the fact remains that it has a fairly large number of seemingly reliable sources (which in general can be a good sign of a subjects notability).  I also believe breakout articles like this allow massive topics (for example the american civil war) to be broken down into smaller areas whereby deatiled information can be provided instead of having one unmaintainable massive article.  The content may be questionable and I do not agree with all break out articles (I.E. if articles started popping up about every city in montanta in the civil war or alaska/hawaii in the civil war, that would be problematic).  Based on my reading of the article I dont see a reason for deletion.  Chris  lk02  Chris Kreider 20:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Article has notable content, worst case this should be merged with and redirected to History of Montana or renamed Montana Territory in the American Civil War- not deleted. Should we also delete Indiana in the American Civil War? Charles Edward 20:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know if the Indiana one should be deleted, there may be a larger legitimate role for an article on that topic. The claims about Montana seem to be especially far-fetched, hence my nomination for this deletion.  The author put into this article "Still, valiant Confederate soldiers did have a presence in what is now present-day Montana." with no source, which appears to me to be nonsense.  That statement was amended by two other editors to drop "valiant" and then to move it into another paragraph which ends in a reference, so it mistakenly appears to be sourced. doncram (talk) 20:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep I can't find any notability guidelines for historic events, except for the generic ones, and I think this article meets them. It has independent sources, though I haven't checked them for reliability. Joeblow179350 (talk) 20:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep Doncram spent much of July trying to torpedo many of my DYKs, even through they were sourced by sources he normally demands of articles. This is just him being petty as I do not listen to whatever demands he requests.  The ACW task force is trying to have as many state articles concerning the war as possible.  For consistency, this article should not be merged with the History of Montana article.-- King Bedford I  Seek his grace  21:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per the ACW task force rationale expressed by King Bedford I. Stevie is the man!  Talk &bull; Work 21:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep Apparently the nominator is either unaware that article sourced to second and third parties meets notability or was aware fo that fact and choose to ignore it, but whatever the case may be this certainly does not deserve the axe. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Respond: All the "Keep" votes notwithstanding, it seemed to me obvious that the topic does not deserve to be an article and a front-page DYK mention. Others can (and apparently do) disagree.  The infobox now in the article stating Confederate soldiers supplied = 0, Union soldiers supplied = 0 is telling.  Others here are agreeing that they question some points in the article. doncram (talk) 01:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Keep - the reason for deletion is not applicable because the article is of a notable topic and is sourced appropriately, also per the ACW task force reasons stated above. This also seems to look and smell like a pointy nom. -MBK004 01:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per ACW task force discussion, which I initiated myself. I requested this article from the task force, and as the editor who maintains the Portal:American Civil War and assists in the maintenance of Template:American Civil War, I have an interest in even the most trivial encyclopedic details related to the subject matter, if approved by consensus. I agree with Charles Edward above that the page should be moved to Montana Territory in the American Civil War. Montana Territory was created during the ACW, so it could be reasonably argued that the war was a factor in its creation. IMHO, bad faith statements made in nomination say much about nominator, unfortunately. I don't understand why an active DYK editor should be labeled negatively for such mild and well-respected wiki-ambition. BusterD (talk) 23:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I should point out that the nominator posted this AfD in ACW TF talk, an act demonstrating respect for consensus process, this sort of notice unlikely to draw an approving crowd. BusterD (talk) 23:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note that Doncram did it after there were 5 keeps and no other opposes.-- King Bedford I Seek his grace  23:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.   —BusterD (talk) 23:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep This seems to be a perfectly viable topic for a short article. I'm a bit confused about who the 'Confederate soldiers' were - was this a formed unit sent to Montana? Nick Dowling (talk) 00:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I concede that my nomination of the article, given some running dispute with Bedford, can "smell" that way if you choose to view it that way. My nomination language should have made some sort of issue along those lines clear.  However, the DYK nomination put the article forward for quick review, and I do question the article's accuracy.  Having several references in an article that asserts the world is flat, does not suffice to justify an article on the flat world.  I note with concern that the sentences which I removed (quoted above) got added back into the article without clarification.  The article still strongly implies that there were Confederate soldiers, not mere sympathizers or deserters, in Montana and that gold was mined for the CSA.
 * Perhaps there is some way I should have tagged the article instead of putting it up for AfD, but I thought AfD was a fair route to go and would draw objective others' views. doncram (talk) 01:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Valid concept for an article. --harej 02:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Note, Bedford has now created an article Idaho in the American Civil War and nominated it for DYK. That's wp:POINTY in my view, given this AfD in progress, and/or I imagine he is trying to taunt me.  BusterD's call for ACW articles, that he refered to above, was: "While clicking through template links, I realized we still haven't covered these states/territories. Perhaps wikipedia doesn't need an Idaho in ACW article, but I'm requesting we fill out the series."  So I gather Idaho is one of the least deserving GEOGRAPHIC AREA x CIVIL WAR articles to create.  I haven't reviewed that article yet.  I don't mind if someone wants to close this AfD in favor of keeping the article, as i do seem to be outnumbered considerably here.  But I would appreciate if other ACW-interested editors would review this Montana article and the new Idaho one for factual accuracy. doncram (talk) 02:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think he's trying to taunt you, I think he's just continuing on with his encyclopedia writing as long as it hasn't been officially condemned by the community (at this rate, it's not). --harej 03:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment That also looks like a perfectly legitimate article. Given that it's pretty clear that this article is going to be kept, why should Bedford stop working on these articles? Nick Dowling (talk) 05:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The AFD process is not something that is designed to stop other legitimate Wikipedia work, including the ongoing factual evaluation of the Montana and Idaho articles. Stevie is the man!  Talk &bull; Work 13:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: this article has significant content, good sources, and is improving nicely in exposition. Jonathunder (talk) 12:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Isn't it time to close this as a overwhelming keep? Eleven keeps, and the only one who wants this deleted proved it wasn't done in good faith?-- King Bedford I  Seek his grace  22:07, 9 August 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.