Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skirmish at Alexander's Bridge


 * 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. Extensive commentary by Donner addresses arguments against deletion, which are slim to begin with. Drmies (talk) 20:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Skirmish at Alexander's Bridge

 * – ( 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) 23:43, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep or at least merge to Battle of Chickamauga - I see no reason for this to be deleted. This a Civil War battle in which 105 + people were killed on the Union side alone, and it was declared a Union victory, so obviously a lot more than 105 rebels were pwned, and there was a consensus on the outcome. I don't see any reason why it would fail notability - if you search for Alexander's Bridge + September 18, 1863 you get enough results to know it was significant.,  Jefferson Davis himself refers to it as a "severe skirmish"   —Мандичка YO 😜 00:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. It already has a paragraph in Battle of Chickamauga, and I don't see it ever being called the "Skirmish at Alexander's Bridge", so a redirect seems pointless. However, a hatnote in Alexander's Bridge seems reasonable, so I've added one. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know what kind of technology you're using to search with, but I found it referred to as a skirmish. It's also included in this book as such.  Additionally see link above where Jefferson Davis refers to it in his history of the confederacy book, as a "severe skirmish."  —Мандичка YO 😜 01:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It may be referred to as a skirmish, but where is it called the Skirmish at Alexander's Bridge? Clarityfiend (talk) 03:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep and if cannot be expanded merge all small ones into a larger list of "Skirmishes of the American Civil War", and keep the name as a redirect. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:31, 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. In this case, I think that the action at Alexander's Bridge should be include in the Battle of Chickamauga and Chickamauga campaign articles, and possibly even receive separate treatment rather than be relegated to some list of skirmishes or otherwise completely omitted. Donner60 (talk) 07:39, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. No evidence of historical significance beyond that of Battle of Chickamauga, so it fails WP:EVENTCRIT. All the information that is worth keeping in some form is already within that article. This is an example of breaking out articles further than is necessary. A redirect is not necessary because this is not a plausible search term. ~ RobTalk 04:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is a close call but this small battle is already covered in summary in the Battle of Chickamauga article and can, and almost certainly should be, included not only in that article but in the Chickamauga Campaign article. While this might seem to indicate a "merge" would be the proper course, there is nothing new in this article to merge except the Confederate casualty number of 105, so a merge in effect would be a delete.


 * If we look only at the facts in light of the general notability guidelines, because I can find nothing that gives any guidance on how to evaluate this specific type of military event, we would have to conclude that this was a notable event. It receives significant coverage from reliable sources. Powell, David A. Failure in the Saddle: Nathan Bedford Forrest, Joe Wheeler, and the Confederate Cavalry in the Chickamauga Campaign. New York: Savas Beatie, LLC, 2010. ISBN 978-1-932714-87-6 has a ten-page chapter on Alexander's Bridge and some earlier remarks. White, William Lee. Bushwhacking on a Grand Scale: The Battle of Chickamauga, September 18-20, 1863. El Dorado Hills, CA: Savas Beattie LLC, 2013. ISBN 978-1-61121-158-0 has a chapter "Alexander's Bridge." The important campaign study, Cozzens, Peter. This Terrible Sound: The Battle of Chickamauga. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1992. ISBN 978-0-252-01703-2, has three solid pages and other text on Alexander's Bridge. Other sources cover it, if more briefly, including Alexander Mendoza, Chickamauga 1863: Rebel Breakthrough, Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger, 2013 and Steven E. Woodworth Six Armies in Tennessee: The Chickamauga and Chattanooga Campaigns, Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 1998.


 * A small Union force of just under 1,000 men held off the leading brigade of a Confederate division which was attempting to cross the Chickamauga Creek on September 18, 1863. Confederate General Braxton Bragg had ordered his corps commanders to cross the creek at four locations to split and defeat in detail the separated Union Army corps. Union Colonel John T. Wilder's "Lightning Brigade", who through private efforts were armed with 7-shot Spencer repeating rifles, defended a previous gap in the Union forward defenses at Alexander's Bridge along Chickamauga Creek. Along with the defenses at Reed's Bridge, Jay's Mill and one or two other locations, the Confederates were delayed in crossing the creek in force almost all day. The Union Army had time to consolidate for the main battle of Chickamauga which started the next day.


 * So why not have a separate article on this apparently important engagement as well as the other skirmishes or minor battles on September 18? I think they are integral parts of the Battle of Chickamauga, certainly of the 9-day Chickamauga campaign, and can be handled in those article. Reed's Bridge and Alexander's Bridge are already handled by paragraphs in the battle article, which as an opening engagements on September 18 section. I think these paragraphs probably should be expanded by a few sentences or another paragraph or so. I think some mention should be made in the campaign article of these and any other notable actions during the campaign that are not the subject of separate articles but appear to be of significance to the overall campaign and final large battle. If Bragg had been able to get his uncooperative subordinates to move faster, and Union advance units had not delayed them when they moved, the Union Army may have been caught in at least three separate locations in turn by the entire Confederate force. As to the importance of the action at Alexander's Bridge, Powell says at page 120: "In short, Wilder's stout defense cost the Confederates the entire afternoon...."


 * The September 18 actions have been treated in the books as implicitly or directly as part of the Battle of Chickamauga. They deserve coverage and maybe even redirects. Whether to include such actions as part of a larger battle or a campaign or in separate articles has no clear guidance that I know about, but I think that separate articles are the exception for actions immediately preceding a main battle. I would certainly argue in favor of keeping articles on preliminary actions like those that occurred on September 18, 1863, if they had occurred some days earlier and were not included in the larger articles or took too much space to adequately explain, but I think that is not a necessary outcome here. The only other alternative may be whether Alexander's Bridge and the other actions were large enough and there are enough available facts about them to justify a briefer mention in the battle and campaign articles, as they have in the battle article, but also a separate "main article" for these separate preliminary engagements. I think it is a close call here but I think it is proper to include the September 18 battles (and maybe some September 17 skirmishes) as part of the other Chickamauga articles without having a separate, and no doubt larger, article for each one. I say each one because although Alexander's Bridge may be the most significant, the others receive coverage as well.


 * I am not sure whether Alexander's Bridge is a plausible search term but I think in view of the coverage in several books, at least a few readers might look for the action under a separate name, but possibly not "Skirmish at Alexander's Bridge.''


 * The 105 casualties were Confederate casualties. Powell, page 117. Cozzens, page 113. Dyer includes Union casualties in a total for the battle. I have not seen a Union casualty figure only for the action at Alexander's Bridge in other sources but it is clear from the narrative that the Union force did not eventually retire unscathed, after some Confederates waded the stream out of range and outflanked them. Maybe a figure could be found but an implication of lower casualties, as the sources appear to imply, may suffice. Donner60 (talk) 07:39, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   20:16, 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.