Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rice E. Graves


 * 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. I am receptive to arguments that subject specific notability guidelines such as WP:SOLDIER are subordinate to the general notability guideline; however, the sources available are difficult to scrutinize for coverage and import. Both sides of the debate have made good points and the "numbers" are roughly equal as well. Protonk (talk) 19:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Rice E. Graves

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Nothing particularly notable about this Confederate casualty of the Civil War. Satisfies none of the WP:SOLDIER criteria. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:22, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

This page should remain. Major Graves was a notable figure in the Civil War, particularly in the advancement of artillery warfare. He was an important figure in the Kentucky Orphan Brigade as well as the Army of Tennessee. It's time the olitical correct types leave important historical figures as Major Graves alone. He is part of Kentucky and Tennessee Civil War history and there has been much published about him, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.87.170.188 (talk) 16:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep as notable. There seems to be enough coverage to satisfy the general notability guideline irrespective of the essay WP:SOLDIER.  Sergeant Cribb (talk) 19:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Seems well written and referenced Softdevusa (talk) 19:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The article needs a lot of work, and needs to be POV checked; but that is not the point of an AfD. The subject of the article appears to be notable per significant mention in multiple independent reliable sources. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. I seem to be fighting a Lost Cause, but I don't agree. The article is plentifully referenced, but are the numbers deceiving? About a third are from the Owensboro Messenger-Inquirer, which has a circulation of around 22K, suggesting to me that this is a person of local interest only. Surely, if he were truly notable, other newspapers would have mentioned him. Four each of the references are clustered around him being Chief of Artillery and a quote, another three that he joined the Confederate Army. 71.87.170.188 says he "was a notable figure in the Civil War, particularly in the advancement of artillery warfare". What is this "advancement"? Graves' Battery states the unit he led consisted of 73 men. It also claims that a "large section" of Fort Donelson National Battlefield" is named in his honor; I see a plaque. There really isn't anything in the article that gives any indication that he did anything particularly notable. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:55, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. A mid-ranking officer with no especial claim to notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment the general notability guidelines are "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". It's not whether we feel that he's important in some absolute sense, it's that multiple independent sources have thought him important enough to write about.  Sergeant Cribb (talk) 06:37, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - this is a tricky one to summarise. The article does not make it clear why the subject is notable and has multiple issues including point of view, referencing, grammar, style and format. Equally I share the nominator's concern that although "plentifully referenced", the bulk of the citations used in the article do seem a little flimsy. Regardless, from a Google book search it seems to me that Graves appears in quite a large number of reliable sources, both historical and modern, although often only in passing or with very little detail. Although I wasn't able to find anything which suggested a reason for his notability, I am prepared to give this one the benefit of the doubt and assume that this consistutes "signficant coverage" under WP:GNG. If kept hopefully someone with knowledge on the subject can bring it up to standard. Anotherclown (talk) 09:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 18:28, 5 July 2011 (UTC)




 * Keep Notible regional civil war figure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jewishprincess (talk • contribs) 19:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's not a very easy one, but I would note that ""significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail" and that a trivial mention is not enough.  Certainly I could not cite the dozens of very reliable phone books that have mentioned someone to substantiate venerability.  Some of the sources used are that clear cut, but most of them aren't.  I can't look at most of the sources themselves, but common sense requires that we look at what they're cited for to see if they really support notability.  Of the 15:


 * 1) One seems to be about his father and his young life
 * 2) One says that he graduated West Point and gives his class ranking
 * 3) Three indicate he joined the Confederate Army
 * 4) Five give his rank and unit
 * 5) One indicates he was wounded in battle twice
 * 6) Four quote a glowing commendation
 * Most of these are just entries in books or periodicals that a listing each and every fact they can find about any soldier in particular areas, units, or battles. They do not show notability.  I just don't think that having a certain number of sources is enough. &Dagger; M A HE W A &Dagger;   &bull;   talk  23:28, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - A worthy biography of a little-known historical figure. One can nit-pick sources about this or that article, but here are the questions we should all ask ourselves before we go hauling things to AfD or blowing them away with our chrome-plated .44 magnum: (1) Is the information accurate? (2) Is the information verifiable? (3) Would Wikipedia be better off with or without the article in question? Too many people get lost in notability guidelines, I think, or obsess over the fact that there are not "adequate" sources at their fingertips from a fly-by 30 second internet search. We have to make allowances for pre-internet biographies. The bottom line is that this article makes Wikipedia better. Flag for more sources if you will, but Keep + Improve is the way to handle material such as this. Carrite (talk) 14:30, 9 July 2011 (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.