Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skirmish at Alcorn's Distillery


 * 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 delete. Nominator argues a. lack of sourcing and b. lack of enduring historical importance. None of the keeps add significant coverage (pointing to Google is just not helpful), and despite Donner's well-weighed commentary, even those comments don't convincingly argue, if they argue it at all, that this was an event of some historical importance. Drmies (talk) 21:13, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Skirmish at Alcorn's Distillery

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG. Insignificant event with no Significant coverage. Event appeared to have no enduring historical significance, per WP:EVENTCRIT. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:42, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - I'm not sure why you're nominating all these Civil War battles. All you have to do is look up the place name + date and you get results. —Мандичка YO 😜 00:20, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The link you added is for a non-free book. I'm not sure what you're talking about.  Magnolia677 (talk) 00:26, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. According to The Union Army: Cyclopedia of battles (the non-free book - search for "Alcorn's Distillery"), the skirmish involved 100 Union soldiers. From the snippet I can view, they took 12 prisoners without a struggle; unless one of them was Robert E. Lee or Jim Beam's ancestor, this had no lasting importance. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:34, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep and if cannot be expanded merge all small ones into a larger list and keep the name as a redirect. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:30, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I post this shorter version of a longer comment I made at another of the AfDs concerning the recently posted series of stub articles on minor Civil War engagements because other readers or commenters, and the person who may close this discussion, may not see the other versions of this comment in relation to the same proposal. A list of Civil War skirmishes, or minor engagements to be more complete, would be long indeed. Long, E. B. The Civil War Day by Day: An Almanac, 1861–1865. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1971., p. 719 states that Dyer, 1908 divides the military actions of the Civil War into 29 campaigns, 76 battles, 310 engagements, 46 combats, 1026 actions, 29 assaults, 6,337 skirmishes, 299 operations, 26 sieges, 64 raids, 727 expeditions, 252 reconnaissances, 434 scouts, 639 affairs, 82 occupations and 79 captures. I have looked carefully at Dyer's book and I could find no explanation of how he came up with these names for the various military events of the Civil War. I think 76 is too few for battles. Many of the actions not shown as skirmishes probably would have to be thrown into a list of skirmishes to be complete. It would be a big list, even if subdivided by states, and a big job. A list of a few of them which have been mentioned in deleted articles or stubs, which also may be proposed for deletion, would be too incomplete to be worth much. Donner60 (talk) 05:58, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. The lack of any evidence that would help us determine historical significance (casualties, specific significant people involved, or even a victorious side) can be taken as evidence that this is not significant. Fails WP:EVENTCRIT. ~ RobTalk 04:16, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Of course there are sources, here: it was a battle in the most well-written-up war in history.  Please remember to follow WP:BEFORE before starting an AFD, or commenting in one.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Simply counting sources does not address notability. In all sources that I've seen (and I did look quite a bit before commenting), this skirmish has a superficial mention and has no significant coverage. A small skirmish with no effect on the war for either side is not worthy of inclusion. ~ RobTalk 22:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I see. that being so, Why is this at AFD? Why can't the military history Civil War editors get together have a place and hash out what's a battle and what is a subhead or alternate name for a battle?E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:21, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * In a big conflict like the Civil War, company-sized engagements generally don't mean much or get called battles. In a smaller one like the Vietnam War, something like the (still larger battalion vs. regiment) Battle of Ong Thanh has more relative significance and coverage. A search on "smallest Civil War battle" brings up the Battle of Dranesville, which involved 9000 soldiers, so this skirmish is not even in the ballpark. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:46, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This discussion does not preempt an RfC or the creation of a new policy to better handle notability for Civil War skirmishes in general, although I doubt that these pop up often enough for that to be worthwhile. As for why this discussion must go beyond Civil War editors, keep WP:OWN in mind. Any interested editor can and should be able to comment in all discussions. ~ RobTalk 12:54, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. Close call. This "battle" took place near Monticello, Kentucky. With that information, a little more can be discovered about it. Union Captain Wendell D. Wiltsie was sent on a patrol with 100 men from three different regiments in an effort to find the notorious Confederate guerrilla, Champ Ferguson, who was executed for murder (war crimes essentially) after the war. Instead, Wiltsie ran into an advance party of 300 of John Hunt Morgan's men who were preparing to launch Morgan's raid through Kentucky, Indiana and Ohio according to McKnight, Brian D. Confederate Outlaw: Champ Ferguson and the Civil War in Appalachia. The Cyclopedia says the Confederate force was "said to be" Morgan's men. Morgan's orders and the beginning of his raid were about a month later so I suppose that these men might have been from another command but it seems Ferguson did not have that many men in his guerrilla force and it is plausible that Morgan had men in Kentucky earlier. There is enough information in the Cyclopedia entry and McKnight's book to write two or three paragraphs about this. Ferguson and Morgan are both notable. The affair is typical of the unpredictable raids, including guerrilla raids, that garrisons in Kentucky and Tennessee, had to cope with. Some stiff fighting and counterattacks ensued, as well as the Union force burning the still because they thought it was a hiding place for bushwackers. According to the Cyclopedia, Wiltsie's unit suffered 12 casualties and reinforcements sent to help him suffered 3 more. (I don't like using skirmish in the title simply because I think the reader may be looking for "battles". The various titles for battles, engagements, skirmishes, actions and the like in the Civil War seem to have been made up by Dyer in 1908 and I can't find that he ever explained how he came up with the distinctions.) I think this is a close call but since we have a little more information about this and there are some indicators of notability, or at least the potential involvement of the forces of notable commanders, I would keep and expand the article. I don't think this is true of some of the other stubs that have been thrown up recently, which I just discovered. I have commented on two others so far and I will look at the others over the next few days if they are not closed before then. Donner60 (talk) 10:02, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I really don't like the idea of keeping something that didn't have much of an effect in the military sense simply because some well-known commanders were involved. That would open the floodgates. We'd have to include the action (also in the Cyclopedia) of March 2, 1863, at Aldie, Virginia, because Mosby himself personally led 70 of his men against 50 Union troops. Again, no real significance overall. As a side note, the National Park Service does classify this in passing as "Skirmish Alcorn's Distillery". Clarityfiend (talk) 22:37, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * By way of comment and not argument: Not losing sight of the fact that we are considering general notability guidelines, I think we don't need to be overly restrictive about articles concerning historical events if they have some coverage in reliable sources, enough detail for a small article and some fact or detail of interest. I did note that this was a close call; I just happened to fall on the other side for the reasons I gave. There are only a limited number of these small engagements in which enough detail to write an article can be found and something of interest or note can be said about them - and which cannot be included in another article as part of a campaign, the lead up to or aftermath of a big battle or in connection with a biography of a commander. (The number of Civil War engagements are somewhat more than 10,000 but available facts, and notability, would support nowhere near that number of potential articles.) The limited number of stand-alone articles that might be created and the facts that Wikipedia does not face space limitations and undoubtedly has hundreds of thousands of articles about minor celebrities, short-run TV shows, entertainment events, you tubers, garage bands and every athlete that ever put on a uniform in a major professional league uniform diminishes the floodgates argument quite a bit for me - and I guess I am writing this in response to that word. I suppose this is getting us off track and is not worth debating, especially here, and also especially because I think our views on these matters - and perhaps more importantly on each article on a case by case basis - appear actually to be quite similar and are likely to mostly coincide as they do on the two other AfDs in this series of Civil War action stubs on which we have both commented so far. Donner60 (talk) 04:57, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is a civil disagreement, not a war. Stick around, though. Magnolia has a bunch more from the same author to nominate after the verdicts are rendered on this group. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:44, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment. I have glanced at a few of those other articles and suspect we will agree on most of them and that most commenters will as well. If any turn out to be keepers in my opinion, they are likely to be close calls. I noticed that the nomination for Action at Abraham's Creek was denied speedy deletion. Since I hope to do a reasonably thorough research job on each, I incorporated my research into the article. If it is nominated at AfD, it can be evaluated on the basis that it is about the most that can be done with the article (although there are perhaps two or three other books I might glance at). Donner60 (talk) 02:30, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems the primary argument here is that this battle is notable because one of its commanders is notable/interesting. Is that an accurate summarization of your position, and if so, how do you reconcile that with notability not being inherited? This is for clarification, not argument; I want to make sure I understand your position. ~ RobTalk 12:54, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Not entirely. Although first I would say that I think that inherited notability would not apply to a historical event because the very participation of notable persons adds to the notability of the event because they help make the event due to their participation or involvement. I might be wrong but I think that concept mostly or entirely applies to people. So by way of made up example, Elvis's son who did nothing but work at an anonymous job and mind his own business does not become notable because of the identity of his father. Presumably because of this, the son would not have independent coverage by reliable sources of anything he might have done of any note except for his being the son. Here we have some coverage in sources about an event in which there was some fighting and casualties and appear to have informed the Union garrison of the presence of a large force of Morgan's cavalry in the area. While Morgan himself apparently was not present, his men were almost certainly there by his command and apparently with a purpose that resulted in a notable raid. The facts that this was an unsuccessful attempt to find the notorious Ferguson, but the patrol found what seems to have been a large advance party of Morgan's men a short time before the start of their famous raid, and fought off this larger group successfully, makes this event more notable than an ordinary minor battle, in my opinion. It also seems to be a good example, because of the additional facts that we have, of what garrisons in border states or occupied areas had to cope with from guerrillas and raiders. Donner60 (talk) 02:30, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - This fascination with the Civil War is amazing. Never have I seen so much well researched debate over a stub AfD (and the creator of this one left a trail of other stub skirmishes).  Last April The Economist wrote this article about the US Civil War, stating "many Americans remain fascinated by the conflict. In 2002 the Library of Congress estimated that 70,000 books had been published about it, more than one a day since the war ended."  Cheers.  Magnolia677 (talk) 03:15, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment A major problem with this type of trail of stub articles, regardless of the general topic, is summarized in the brief essay Kittens. I will let that speak for itself but I do note that these types of articles present problems for reviewers and those interested in the general subject. The stubs may all appear to be on subjects without much notability or of any value as they stand, but the subject of a few of them may be notable and others might have some facts that could be included in other articles. Almost no guidance can be had from the articles. Reviewers must try to find out whether anything notable and significant can be found on the topic and decide what recommendations or actions to take (keep, merge, decline). My guess is that many people are not going to want to spend significant time finding information or cleaning up stubs that do not already have a few facts showing notability or interest and do not cite any of the references that might be found to support an article. And while some of the support may exist, it may not all be online. (I am fortunate to have quite a few books on military history, many on the American Civil War, and have access to Questia and JSTOR through Wikipedia.) I decided to omit an even longer discussion of this that I had drafted since I am probably approaching posting too much here already, even though this is related to evaluation of the series of stubs of which the subject article is one. Donner60 (talk) 05:46, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   20:15, 27 July 2015 (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.