Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Newell W. Spicer


 * 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.  A  Train talk 07:53, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Newell W. Spicer

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails the General Notability Guideline, the subject-specific notability guideline and WP:ANYBIO. The article is a collection of passing mentions and WP:COATRACK stuff. A biography article needs in-depth coverage and there's none. 8 or 800 trivial mentions do not add up to significant coverage in reliable sources and there's nothing that can be done about that. This article should be deleted & then redirected to his unit. Exemplo347 (talk) 13:41, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Exemplo347 (talk) 13:43, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Exemplo347 (talk) 13:43, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:52, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Redirect name to 1st Regiment Kansas Volunteer Infantry. Otherwise, not notable; trivial. Kierzek (talk) 13:52, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. Outright deletion would not be appropriate.  A number of nuggets of info have been dug out and presented which are interesting and perfectly appropriate to include in an article on Newell Spicer, if there is such an article, whether or not they go far enough on their own to establish individual notability for the article.  There is no article about his unit, Company D.  At worst the topic should be redirected to the article about the regiment, 1st Regiment Kansas Volunteer Infantry, which mentions him and his unit.  If the decision here is not to Keep a separate article, the redirect's history would save the details, and could be restored to a full article if/when further sourcing becomes available. --Doncram (talk) 15:34, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge to 1st Regiment Kansas Volunteer Infantry per WP:PRESERVE. Fairly well documented commanders of the regiment could definitely get a short paragraph there, and a redirect there is appropriate.Icewhiz (talk) 15:50, 21 May 2018 (UTC) Struck - updated !vote below.Icewhiz (talk) 09:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It's tricky to see what content could be used for a merge - it's all run-of-the-mill stuff ("Spicer was a captain before his promotions" for example - the reference for that actually says he's a Lieutenant, but never mind) so at best, all it does is prove that he existed. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:57, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * And 1st Regiment Kansas Volunteer Infantry is filled with run of the mill detail. We could definitely expand coverage there to a paragraph - and it definitely makes sense to leave a redirect to there.Icewhiz (talk) 16:23, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with you about the Redirect, and I suggested it in my nomination as it's the sensible target. Exemplo347 (talk) 16:28, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


 * "Newell W. Spicer came to Kansas from Pennsylvania in 1856 with an emigrant party from Chicago. He arrived in Topeka August 13, and immediately joined with the attack on Fort Saunders. During the remainder of the struggle he was continually in the field, rising from the rank of first lieutenant of the Chicago company to the office of adjutant. He became a member of the Stubbs company, and was elected third lieutenant in 1859. He entered the Civil War as first lieutenant of Company D, First regiment Kansas Volunteer infantry in 1861, and was promoted to captain in 1862. In June, 1863, he rose to the rank of colonel."


 * "It is doubtful whether any similar organization had a sterner record of service in the Civil War than did the Stubbs. When President Lincoln called for troops in May, 1861, they responded immediately. After filling their ranks they proceeded to Fort Leavenworth, where they were mustered into the First regiment of Kansas Volunteer infantry. In completing the organization of the regiment, lots were drawn for rank and that of "D" fell to the Stubbs. The company's officers were F. B. Swift, [10] captain, N. W. Spicer, [11] first lieutenant, and Caleb S. Pratt, [12] second lieutenant. On June 12 orders were issued for six companies of the First regiment to proceed to Wyandotte. Much to the disgust of the Stubbs they were left behind, due to the illness of Captain Swift and the absence of Lieutenant Spicer. [13] But the delay was only for a few days and soon the whole force was under orders to march."


 * "Within two months after organization the First regiment engaged in its first major battle at Wilson creek, one of the most important battles in the West. In this engagement hard fighting fell to the First Kansas and the First Missouri infantry, both of which suffered terrible losses. It is recorded that the Stubbs here displayed the greatest bravery, being one of six companies of the First Kansas ordered by Col. George W. Deitzler to engage a rebel force four times their number. [14] Lieutenant Spicer, who took command after Captain Swift was wounded, wrote of the battle: "At one stroke the officers of our company all fell but myself. After Captain Swift was wounded and disabled, I took command . . . . We were exposed to a galling fire from two directions for over three hours. The men fell around me in every direction. There was a perfect storm of iron and lead. But our men never flinched or moved until ordered. Thirty of our company were killed and wounded, although I only reported 24." He also quoted Maj. S. D. Sturgis as saying, "The Kansas boys are doing the best fighting I ever saw before." [16] In his official report."


 * This from the From the Kansas Historical Society along with all the other sources and cited content isn't substantial coverage? Wacky. FloridaArmy (talk) 16:00, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure this has been discussed before. A bunch of passing mentions do not add up to Significant Coverage and every example you just provided meets the definition of "passing mention". An in-depth biography of the person is what is required for a Wikipedia biography article. Exemplo347 (talk) 16:04, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you are playing pretty fast and loose with the words "brief" and "mentions". FloridaArmy (talk) 16:13, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep I think there's something here, there seems to be some off-line sources worth considering and the research is good. I see no policy violation... seems to me to pass WP:GNG... --Paul McDonald (talk) 16:02, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * what offline sources detail him in any depth? That's GNG, and AGF is not a suicide pact. - Sitush (talk) 11:26, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It seems that the sources I could not access are now readable. Thanks to whoever improved the source links!  It seems to me that the article now passes WP:GNG.  Sitush, you've posted before--I don't understand your reference to a "suicide pact" at all.  It's just AFD, no one should get hurt here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Read WP:PACT. We should not let AGF take precedence over the integrity of the project. And, no, I do not believe those sources are now suddenly readable. They're almost certainly different sources to those that you were referring to (and, yes, I am aware that this is assuming bad faith - that is because you're making similar comments elsewhere & thus there is a pattern of sorts). As for GNG, I think you need to read that, too, because you're not explaining why this complies with it. - Sitush (talk) 14:22, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I just read WP:PACT three times... don't understand how it applies here (or anywhere actually). It's clear that you don't understand my statements and on top of that you admit to assuming bad faith with me.  Therefore I choose to be done with discussing this matter.  Let the closer choose the best result, I'm happy whatever it is.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:32, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Redirect as per others above. A bunch of passing mentions does not meet WP:GNG and I'm not even convinced that those mentions have been correctly paraphrased. That said, I'd be interested to know what the offline sources are to which refers. Do those go into any depth or is it basically more of the same? We've got a real problem with the WP:HISTRS essay as things stand - if reliable modern sources do not really mention him then that in itself would suggest that he isn't particularly notable. - Sitush (talk) 18:39, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to know which specific sources are referred to. You can't just assume sources exist at AfD. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:13, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


 *  Weak keep - Has a short biography in the Kansas Historical Quarterly in the notes on page 130 . This isn't a clear ANYBIO, but provides enough material that, combined with more passing mentions, I think an article on him can pass WP:V/WP:NPOV/WP:NOR. A couple of points not in the article: He was a marshall in Lawrence after the war and a candidate before. He, apparently, disappeared in 1871. Smmurphy(Talk) 19:15, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * He was a marshall, you mean like a sheriff? Your voice-translation software wrote "martial". --Doncram (talk) 19:45, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, fixed. Smmurphy(Talk) 09:58, 22 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep, per Smmurphy, assuming good faith on their sources (which are behind Newspapers.com paywall for me). And in general this seemed marginally notable to me already, when I commented above (after nomination and a Delete vote which was changed later to Redirect). --Doncram (talk) 19:45, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry if my links above were unclear, I want to point out that the newspaper.com links are all passing (with the possible exception of the 1910 article). I've added them and their information to the main article, so you can see them as clippings there. I've also reorganized the article a bit. Finally, I want to invited people to check out WP:TWL for gratis accounts with various resources including newspapers.com! Smmurphy(Talk) 20:45, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * They're mostly tripe, though, aren't they? People are scraping the barrel here, eg: we seem to be saying that he left the army, became a marshall and then left the police all in the space of 6 months in 1869 yet - woo-hoo - it is very important to note that he was involved with chasing someone during that time. It's trivia at the extreme, an assemblage of passing mentions etc. Another example is the mention to whom he reported while in the army. And he was one of those who was going to transport William Quantrill except the person in question wasn't in fact Quantrill. Who gives a crap? He doesn't seem to meet WP:NSOLDIER, except perhaps #5 if a company is considered to be suitably large, which I think is dubious. This inclusionism gone mad. - Sitush (talk) 11:05, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify #5 of WP:NSOLDIER - He would have had to command a division at least for that to apply - a company is 3 levels below that. I agree with you about the trivia - since when do we create an article about a random name we've read somewhere & then throw sources at it until something sticks? It's mind-boggling. Exemplo347 (talk) 13:39, 22 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Redirect-Per Sitush.A bunch of trivial mentions do not maketh a standalone article. ~ Winged Blades Godric 09:50, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect. Not seeing any special notability per WP:SOLDIER or WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:54, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect after deletion, sources are too weak to show that he meets GNG. One of the sources Wind across the prairie is fiction and should not be used as a source in an encyclopedia IMHO. As it says in WP:NSOLDIER if there is enough information in reliable sources to include details about a person's birth, personal life, education and military career, then they most likely warrant a stand-alone article. this information is missing from the sources. As a side note this editor has created rather a lot of articles about minor figures from the civil war that might need a bit of scrutiny after this Afd. Dom from Paris (talk) 10:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - I've been looking into this a bit more and my reading on Spicer is that he is more famous for his hand in and account of Bleeding Kansas than his role in the Civil War. His account is cited as "Hyatt Collection" or "Thaddeus Hyatt Collection" and as “Experiences of N. W. Spicer in Kansas” and is a significant part of the primary sources used in research on that period. On one hand, I still think the article is encyclopedic and have struck "weak" from my !vote. On the other hand, if redirected, I think a better redirect destination would be Thaddeus Hyatt. I will add a sentence to that article about the Hyatt Collection either way. Smmurphy(Talk) 12:38, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It struck me that my previous comment may be seen as an argument that he is encyclopedic because of NSOLDIER #8, "as an authoritative source on military matters/writing." I did not mean this, I think he is encyclopedic because the article cites RS, is V/NPOV/NOR, and because Spicer receives borderline significant coverage in Caldwell 1937 and Cova 2016, is found to be worth mentioning in a variety of other sources, was a highly ranked although not a flag officer in the civil war, and was a martial marshal (a minor elected public office) in a time an era where that position was very public and a position that place an outsized role in modern memory. Smmurphy(Talk) 13:22, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Plenty of writers of historic primary documents are not notable in their own right, even if cited by others. In fact, probably most fall into that category and if they are notable in their own right then the citers usually provide significant background/life detail (and we would use that as the source for the bio). Merely citing deposited papers does not make for notability. I'm also curious about your addition including the words "are an important reference in research on ..." - does the source actually say that they are "important" or is that just your conclusion? A quote would be handy. - Sitush (talk) 14:14, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)Thanks for your question and pointing out my OR. Regarding whether the importance of the Hyatt papers and Newells contribution to them, I've added a citation to the discussion of the papers in the Kansas Historical Quarterly (1881) with Newell's included as an example states that, "Examples ... here given ... indicate their character and value as materials of Kansas history". As you can see, this is quite an old citation, but the continued use of the papers and of this set of selections from the papers indicates to me that it remains true today. I don't think the Hyatt Collection or any manuscript in it is itself notable, sorry to have been unclear.
 * I should note that I agree with the idea the two sources that cover the individual in any depth do not cover him in very much depth. I also agree that beyond that he has held a number of positions and done a number of things that don't quite satisfy a number of SNGs. To reiterate, for me, an article that nearly satisfies a number of guidelines for being a suitable subject of an article and satisfies WP:N on only a very broad reading but clearly does or can satisfy our core content policies and which is written in an encyclopedic tone, contains more than trivial information about a subject, and does not fail COATRACK/NOT/PROMO can often be a suitable subject for the encyclopedic. The point isn't that we should allow for article writers to skirt as close as they can to our guidelines and policies as they wish. Rather, I feel that this article seems encyclopedic enough (he played many minor roles, we have RS on much of his life, etc). Smmurphy(Talk) 15:03, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd add that this is yet more of the HISTRS stuff I mentioned above. The source that is cited for the "important" phrase is itself from 1932. I'm presuming these state history societies have some merit but it would be good to know whether the writers of the various sources had any relevant academic pedigree or were just enthusiastic amateurs etc. - Sitush (talk) 14:50, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Malin, the source of the 1932 article, was a professor at the University of Kansas. Martha B. Caldwell, the source of the 1937 article, was librarian for the Kansas Historical Association.(https://www.newspapers.com/image/14829562/?terms=%22Martha%2BB.%2BCaldwell%22) I could not find who was the editor of the Kansas Historical Society Papers in 1881, but guess it was then secretary, Franklin G. Adams - who was also a frontier teacher, lawyer, judge, and state legislator. Smmurphy(Talk) 15:27, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. I'm afraid that this sort of thing confuses me, eg: why a US judge and legislator at state level qualifies as a historian. For example, as I understand it, such people in the US are elected officials and thus instantly have significant bias. That would be ok if they were also accepted in the academic community as historians ... but they're usually not. This sort of thing strikes me as "professionalism" via the back door. But what do I know? The workings of the US never cease to confuse me, as I am sure applies in the opposite direction! - Sitush (talk) 23:36, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think Adams would qualify as a reliable historian. His stature, expertise, and experience is more that of a respected antiquarian living in the same period in the Eastern US or the UK. Officers of a historical society of that period would generally not be automatically considered to have great expertise, and should be used with caution. The nature of the material we are using in this article is such that I am not overly concerned. But if we added great detail about the events in Kansas in 1856, we shouldn't use such old sources as their were conflicting accounts and I wouldn't trust a 1881 source to pick one that fits with our contemporary beliefs. Caldwell was a well published librarian/archivist and I think her respectability as a historian are fairly good given her era. Malin's qualifications are clearer, although any source could have problems and I am not familiar with his work generally and don't know if there are any red flags. Smmurphy(Talk) 00:50, 24 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Unusually well documented for a lieutenant colonel, was clearly of some prominence in frontier Kansas. That he has been mentioned in RS articles years after his disappearance attests to secondary notability, fulfilling WP:GNG. I do not see these as trivial considering that the articles in question have several sentences on Spicer. Kges1901 (talk) 02:14, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * If you dig around local newspapers where I live, you will find ongoing coverage about me. It includes photos from when I was a child, some stories from schooldays, a large feature when I got through to Cambridge, sports achievements since then etc. Despite all of which, and mentions in a couple of local interest books, I am most definitely not notable. Let's get a sense of proportion, folks. - Sitush (talk) 08:45, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The sources aren't all newspapers now; they now include two books, and at least the books are secondary. This article is beyond just newspaper mentions. Kges1901 (talk) 09:11, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I apologise for the confusion. My point was not that the sources are from newspapers, merely that scattered short mentions do not notability make and, indeed, I appear to have better coverage than Spicer due to a double-page spread as well as mentions in a couple of books. - Sitush (talk) 09:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Question Where was he born? When was he born? What are the dates of the important events in his life? Where did he go to school? There's no real depth here, it's just a collection of trivialities. As to his rank - was it a confirmed rank? Acting? Did he actually hold a confirmed commission at all? The information isn't out there. This isn't the Kansas Wikipedia, it's the English-language version of the world's Wikipedia. Let's not start indiscriminately including people that local historical societies don't even have basic birthplace information about. Exemplo347 (talk) 07:21, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Well said. - Sitush (talk) 08:42, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Like all volunteer (non-regular) Union officers in the American Civil War, Spicer held a commission from the governor of his state, for the duration of the regiment's enlistment. Additionally, many volunteer officers have poorly documented early lives, especially those who emigrated or moved like Spicer, see Colton Greene for a Confederate example. Kges1901 (talk) 09:23, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * According to census records, he was born in Pennsylvania in about 1830. His own account published in "Selections of the Hyatt Collection" in Collections of the Kansas State Historical Society says he was a "native of Susquahenna County". I'm hesitant to include information from his own account and while I have occasionally used census information in articles, I currently prefer not to. Our information about his disappearance is not really of good quality, as it is hearsay in old newspapers. Information about his rank is pretty standard and is as Kges1901 describes and is in the article. It is true that this article contains more information than any one source and that other than a footnote by Caldwell, there is no other biography-style source about him in the references. I agree that these questions are important and usually feel that the ability to answer them is a good sign of suitability (per NSOLDIER: "If, for instance, there is enough information in reliable sources to include details about a person's birth, personal life, education and military career, then they most likely warrant a stand-alone article."). Smmurphy(Talk) 09:52, 24 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - per additional sources by Smmurphy and role in Bleeding Kansas.Icewhiz (talk) 09:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Eh? Even Smmurphy is saying that the sources are not great etc. If this were an article about someone from India, everyone would be clamouring to delete it due to poor sourcing, lack of information etc but because it is about a Yank, rose-tinted spectacles are donned. - Sitush (talk) 09:08, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I know you aren't suggesting I, myself, am inconsistent - as we've discussed this before - But I want to point out that I happen to have !voted similarly on a similarly borderline Indian case recently. I would say that leadership in Bleeding Kansas and the Civil War are slightly better cases for suitability than non-elected leadership in district politics (admittedly, apples and oranges - but so too was your comparison). Smmurphy(Talk) 09:27, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I !vote the same for American and non-American subjects, though the aversion (with some justification) to Raj era sourcing in India does make sourcing there a bit more difficult there at times for this era. I was previously at merge to the regiment - when what we had was a civil war officer of some note, but not sufficient for standalone. Now we have sourcing relating to the Bleeding Kansas period as well as the subject's accounts themselves being cited as "Hyatt Collection"/"Experiences of N. W. Spicer in Kansas". Merge/Redirect to the regiment no longer fits the bill (as it seems the Bleeding Kansas bit is possibly more significant). SOLDIER just creates a presumption of notability - it does not preclude notability (and is more geared to modern figures - and is particularly not suited for frontier wars - e.g. the more notable William B. Travis - a Lt. Col - A hundred and eighty were challenged by Travis to die / By a line that he drew with his sword as the battle drew nigh Cash (in this version he replaces sword with gun)). The 2E/3E amalgamation here passes GNG.Icewhiz (talk) 09:29, 24 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep per sources used for GNG. Also we should use the 1930 date of birth and his statement that he was born in Susquehanna County. ~ EDDY  ( talk / contribs ) ~ 15:41, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Use a primary source (the Census) for his date of birth and another primary source for the place? Doesn't that just sum up the problems with this article's subject... Exemplo347 (talk) 23:32, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't. You aren't using the primary sources to establish notability, just source important life events. ~ EDDY  ( talk / contribs ) ~ 18:59, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * If you can find a way of incorporating a birthdate into this article without using original research or a synthesis of sources, then go ahead. As a side note, nobody has actually said that there's a set 1830 birth date except you. Exemplo347 (talk) 12:14, 27 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - per Smmurphy. I'm more of an inclusionist, generally, provided something of encyclopedic value is produced. In this case I think something of that sort has been made, and we achieve nothing by deleting it. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:12, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep significant historical figure that had a signifanct role in Bleeding Kansas events, commanding a company and then a regiment in important American Civil War campaigns over several years, as well as involvement in notable raids and battles. We know this because of primary and secondary sources such as the Kansas Historical Society. That there are parts of his life that we don't yet know much does not make coverage of him and the notable parts we do know excludable. Article has been greatly expanded and improved through the work of several editors and can be expanded and improved more. FloridaArmy (talk) 16:29, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * A company is not a significant unit. His actions in Bleeding Kansas were slight. The mentions of him are old and mostly parochial. If it can be expanded more, why didn't you do it? This is a mess of your making, as with some many other creations. -
 * I have been. Many company commanders have articles. He also commanded a regiment later in his career as I noted immediately above your comment. And he had a sinificant role in various battles and raids. If something is "messy" feel free to fix it. That's not grounds for deletion. FloridaArmy (talk) 17:07, 25 May 2018 (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.