Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southern Cross of Honor


 * 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. There was a substantial expansion on 25 January, which somewhat calls into question earlier opinions.  Sandstein  11:23, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Southern Cross of Honor

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Despite some effort I have had difficulty finding anything that indicates this is a notable award. It seems no more notable then any number of other minor and society awards given out by members. Nor can I find any meaningful coverage to indicate its awarding is considered news worthy. It seems less notable then the Silver Centennial Pin Award from Haddonfield Lions. Slatersteven (talk) 17:19, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - per above, I have also struggled to find any reliable sources or significant coverage outside the United Daughters of the Confederacy site. It does not appear notable enough to have its own article. The section on the United Daughters of the Confederacy appears to be more appropriate for the limited information we have. Garuda28 (talk) 17:26, 5 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. No notability outside of the UDC. Binksternet (talk) 17:40, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect per WP:ATD-R, as it appears to be a legitimate search term within the broader subject. ——  SerialNumber  54129  17:53, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Not sure, I have only ever heard of it in connection with the UDC (in fact I had never heard of it until I read about it on our article about the UDC).Slatersteven (talk) 17:59, 5 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep as it meets WP:GNG. Its history is discussed in an antiques column here at the Tri-City Herald, a 2013 dedication ceremony involving the medals rates a column here at the Washington Post, it is included in the special collections at the University of Central Florida, and it is described here at The Post and Courier as a "black market collector's item" targeted by anti-Confederate protests. It gets a brief mention here in a Civil War encyclopedia as an equivalent to the North's GAR medal. Also, the fact that it is one of the markers available from the Department of Veterans Affairs, as mentioned in the article, points towards notability. PohranicniStraze (talk) 18:14, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I note the GAR medal does not have an article.Slatersteven (talk) 18:21, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * True, but if it did it looks like it would also meet WP:GNG. Out of curiosity I was just looking up the GAR medal, and its history is surprisingly interesting (the design was similar enough to the Medal of Honor to piss off quite a few MoH holders). PohranicniStraze (talk) 18:35, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * One of your sources is a blog, and being part of a museums collection means nothing, I could donate my collection to a museum. So we are left with a page about its value as an antique (again not really establish any real notability) and some stuff about the use of the emblem (not the medal) on tomb stones, thus this means (at best) merging with List of Confederate monuments and memorials or the UDC page (at best).Slatersteven (talk) 18:38, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually two of them are blogs (Tri-City Herald and WaPo), but they are not personal blogs, and fall within the scope of WP:NEWSBLOG. PohranicniStraze (talk) 18:52, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Even if all the useful information about the medal were brought into one place, the amount of text could easily fit into the larger article about the organization. According to WP:SUBARTICLE, I don't think this medal needed to be spun out into its own article. Binksternet (talk) 00:19, 6 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep per . I also did my own quick Google search and found this WP:SECONDARY source: , which says:
 * The Southern Cross of Honor award originated on 13 October 1862 as an act of the Confederate Congress to recognize the courage,                          valor, and good conduct of officers, non-commissioned officers and privates of the Confederate Army. Later, this award became                           the Cross of Military Service, which is awarded to men who, in addition to having a Confederate ancestor, served in the Spanish-American                           War, the Philippine Insurrection, World War I, or World War II.
 * I'm pretty sure it is legit. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:42, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Then it is not the same award as this one was established in 1899. This is an awarded given by the UDC, not the CSA. Your text may refer to Confederate Medal of Honor Slatersteven (talk) 18:48, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It's the same metal. I'm not sure why there are two different dates.  The early date certainly makes more sense if it is an award for valor issued during the war.  The site I gave does mention the UDC at the top, so the award is definitely connected more to them more than the CSA.  Perhaps because the UDC was formed long after the war, either (1) They issued the awards rather than the CSA (or in addition to)--a bit strange, but possible, since the CSA was disbanded (2) They formed a list of issued metals in the absence of the CSA records.  This is all speculation on my part.  Possibly a call to one of the libraries that has them would easily straighten out the date issue, or maybe some of the RS explains it better. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:02, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Is it the same? It seems that the Confederate Medal of Honor was never issued, and long after some were minted. By an organisation linked to the UDC. Thus any confusion may be the result of that. Or it may be an attempt to claim false legitimacy by claiming to be something it is not (and evidence they are in fact the same award, other then the UDC's own claims?Slatersteven (talk) 19:11, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. It is the same.   only mentions the Southern Cross of Honor.  Nowhere does it say anything about the Confederate Medal of Honor, which is a different award.  I do not know why you bring up the Confederate Medal of Honor which is not mentioned in the article.  We are only talking about the Southern Cross of Honor--the award created by the Confederacy and used by the UDC as mentioned in the article .  It's the same award.  --David Tornheim (talk) 04:20, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note that this should be an argument for merge anyway, if they are the same why two separate articles?Slatersteven (talk) 19:51, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The article I talk about is just the one award the Southern Cross of Honor . It is not two different awards.  It does not mention the Confederate Medal of Honor, which is a different award entirely, and not relevant to this discussion.  --David Tornheim (talk) 04:24, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This [] makes it clear they are two separate medals.Slatersteven (talk) 19:57, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That reference talks about multiple different metals. But the only one that matters here is the one award, the Southern Cross of Honor.  The WP:RS I provided,, clearly mentions it.  It is the same metal that we have been discussing as to whether it has WP:RS, and it does indeed,  and the RS mentioned above and in the article.  It was apparently established by the CSA in 1862 and issued by the UDC in 1899.  It has nothing to do with the Confederate Medal of Honor that is related to the sons--not the daughters. Let's just focus on the RS for the Southern Cross of Honor and not worry about the Confederate Medal of Honor which is a different unrelated metal, okay? --David Tornheim (talk) 04:35, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The 1862 act of the Confederate Congress simply authorized the issuance of unnamed decorations (medals and badges) for bravery. However, due to wartime exigencies, no medals were actually given out (except for the Davis Guard Medal, a special case). Instead, after a year had passed, the Army decided to create a Roll of Honor to recognize deserving officers and men (and one woman). After the war, the UDC created the Southern Cross of Honor which was given out to anyone who served honorably.
 * It is comparable to the Grand Army of the Republic Medal, issued by the fraternal organization the Grand Army of the Republic. Note that we don't have an article about the GAR Medal, even though it is arguably more prominent. Note further that the SCV also claims that their CMOH was authorized by the same 1862 law, even though they did not begin minting their medal until 1977. Since the text of the law was open ended, I suppose that any entity could start issuing medals and say they were authorized to do so. Mobi Ditch (talk) 21:09, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, the source you provided, "A Guide to the United Daughters of the Confederacy Southern Cross of Honor records, ca. 1900-1950", includes an introduction which you're quoting. The first part of that intro is copied verbatim from the UDC's website. It's likely that the rest of the introduction is also sourced to the UDC. So I do not think it qualifies as an independent, secondary source.Mobi Ditch (talk) 21:21, 23 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete: a nn commemorative award; some of the article is self-sourced to UDC. The other sources are in passing or blogs. "Confederate Medal of Honor" redirect to Confederate Medal of Honor (Sons of Confederate Veterans), established in 1977. So it's not the same award. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:11, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete, and redirect to the Daughters article if any reliable sources exist. Every substantive source currently in this article is affiliated or unreliable (and in some cases both). Guy (Help!) 23:27, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect to United Daughters of the Confederacy. To whatever extent there's a claim of notability here, WP:NOPAGE applies. It fits very sensibly into the parent article. This article appears to rely almost exclusively on primary sources, so there's not really anything to merge. Don't see any real need to delete the history, but also don't feel strongly about it. At very least the further reading section could be useful when trying to add sources to the main article? &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 18:15, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Update: I added a couple secondary refs to the UDC article. Redirect, rather than merge, seems most sensible now. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 18:43, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Question: I see quite a few votes for Redirect or Delete after multiple WP:SECONDARY, WP:INDEPENDENT reliable sources on the subject have been identified:
 * Mississippi Library archives:, which includes the entire article about the Southern Cross as a PDF.
 * Library of Virginia:
 * Library of Southern Florida:
 * U.S. Dept. of Veteran Affairs :
 * The inscription on the special style for Civil War Confederate is also limited. The Southern Cross of Honor is automatically inscribed at the top. The name is arched, followed by abbreviated military organization and dates of birth and death. No additional items can be inscribed. If a flat marker is desired for a Confederate soldier, the Southern Cross of Honor can be inscribed if requested... [includes picture]
 * 7. :
 * § 18.2-176. Unauthorized wearing or displaying on motor vehicles of any button, insignia or emblem of certain associations or societies or of Southern Cross of Honor.
 * (b) No person shall wear any Southern Cross of Honor when not entitled to do so by the regulations under which such Crosses of Honor are given.
 * 8. -- Page 203 is here
 * 9. City of Grove, Oklahoma:
 * 10. James Madison University:
 * 11. Kentucky Historical Society:
 * 12. numerous items coming from this Washington University in St. Louis library search:
 * I do not understand how you can vote that way, when notability has been established by these sources. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:47, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Not sure that library calalouge entries are RS for notability (especialy as they are donated collection). Nor is a law, it shows it exists, not that it is notable. Not (in fact) would the fact people are allowed to have it inscribed on crosses. In fact most of this look pretty trivial.Slatersteven (talk) 11:22, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 12. numerous items coming from this Washington University in St. Louis library search:
 * I do not understand how you can vote that way, when notability has been established by these sources. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:47, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Not sure that library calalouge entries are RS for notability (especialy as they are donated collection). Nor is a law, it shows it exists, not that it is notable. Not (in fact) would the fact people are allowed to have it inscribed on crosses. In fact most of this look pretty trivial.Slatersteven (talk) 11:22, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:46, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 05:19, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 05:19, 13 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Redirect or delete per above—fails GNG. buidhe (formerly Catrìona) 06:00, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Its part of history. UDC was once an important organization that gave this award to veterans having distinguished themselves in the service of the Confederacy, like Belle Boyd. You will find it on markers and monuments. Its protected by Virginia law. Creuzbourg (talk) 15:02, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That might be true, but none of that is related to notability for Wikipedia purposes. bui<b style="color: White">dhe</b> (formerly Catrìona) 17:10, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. Appears to be notable enough for an article. Plenty of coverage. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:54, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 02:07, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep entirely due to the hefty research performed by the editors above. It looks like there is now a great deal more material to add to the page, making it much more useful to readers. 31.54.34.61 (talk) 03:57, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That is not a reason to keep though. It must satisfy WP:GNG, which it still does not appear to do. Garuda28 (talk) 02:12, 23 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Merge/redirect . I've reviewed the sources in the article and none of them that are independent are about the medal specifically. They just mention its existence and perhaps list honorees. The best source listed above devotes only three short sentences to it. Therefore, in my opinion, it does not meet WP:GNG. It would be more suitable as a section of the main UDC article. Mobi Ditch (talk) 20:46, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I've found additional sources and added to the article. With other changes since the start of this AfD, the article is now probably developed enough to pass WP:GNG. Mobi Ditch (talk) 10:14, 25 January 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.