Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battles in Vermont

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 keep. A decision on moving the article to a new title is a decision to be taken elsewhere but there is consensus here that this is a valid article. Davewild (talk) 08:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Battles in Vermont

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable as it is merely a menu of links which would be better as a template. WikiCopter (♠ • ♣ • ♥ • ♦ • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 02:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Might be better as a navbox, but I think this might have potential as a list. If this is kept it should be moved to List of military engagements in Vermont. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Their Green Mountain Boys seemed to have accomplished a lot. Searching for the state's name and that of various wars, will probably find ample results. Might be a government website out there, listing the states history. Dream Focus 05:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There really are far few battles that fit here to defend the existence of this page. It's essentially nothing but a shorter summary of a few battles. If there was any particular info here on why being in Vermont had a major effect on the battles it would be a different case, but this is not so.--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article puts unrelated things together merely because they happened in Vermont. BTW the St. Albans Raid was not really a battle but an attack on civilians by a military force, the other side did not fight back. How about a template for "History of Vermont" with a section for "Military"? Steve Dufour (talk) 11:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: there isn't really enough military history here to justify an article at all. Anything worthy of keeping can be merged to history of Vermont. bahamut0013^words _deeds 12:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A few people have said stuff along the lines of "work in progress" and cited eventualist views. I happen to be an eventualist myself, but this is a historical article. The record of battles seems to indicate that the list is about as complete as it's going to get (unless some new battles occur within the state, which jest ain't plenty likely). There just isn't any room for improvement, and that argument doesn't at all address the notability concerns of a somewhat trivial list like this. bahamut0013^words _deeds 13:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Three sources added to the talk page for improvements, including a book on Western Abenakis history, including possibly battles with Native Americans. Patience may provide a much better article with more inline citations.--DThomsen8 (talk) 15:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Standard article with excellent references. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^express 20:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't see the problem with the article. There were notable battles in Vermont, so why shouldn't their be a list article to assist with navigating them? However, it may be appropriate to move the article to List of battles in Vermont. I think it would be great to have an article like this for all US states that have had notable battles. SnottyWong ^express 20:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly because there only seem to have been four, and the list would better be served as a section of History of Vermont. Also, I think it's somewhat relevant to this discussion to note the existence of the page Vermont in the American Civil War.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable and is not simply a menu of links. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSNOTABLE calls will be ignored. Tarc 14:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That cuts both ways. In my case, I added a source to demonstrate notability. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 4 is enough for a summary article or list. I have noticed that those deleting list articles normally object on the basis of size— they are either too large or two small. This is not a criterion for deletion., assuming its more than one. ( There is no upper limit, because we can divide alphabetically. ) DGG ( talk ) 04:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly a viable topic but With only three instances (And one of those is likely hypothetical) of Action occuring in Vermont it seems hard to justify a whole article on the topic. If more battles can be added with WP:RS I will revise to keep The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 04:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Article has been expanded substantially to the point where such an Article is viable. Need more work but AFD is not clean up The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 16:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the must fully fledged section of the article is on the Battle of Bennington which took place outside the border of Vermont (in New York) and it could be argued it shouldn't therefore be in the article at all. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure about a keep or delete myself yet, but on this point...the area in question was disputed at the time between New Hampshire and New York (there was no Vermont-as-state until 1791). It should be phrased as "...in what is now New York" in the article. Tarc 14:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Merge to History of Vermont. As at least one of the battles occured in new york state. Maybe it should be just a list.Slatersteven (talk) 14:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep St. Albans Raid is notable, so is Hubbardton, as is Bennington - and all were, indeed, in Vermont. Territorial claims of New York and Massachusetts were not settled at the time. Vermont's first name was "New Connecticut". WP current usage is to identify sites as being in current map boundary definitions. Collect (talk) 14:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Battle of Benngington was BOUT 10 miles from Bennington, Vermont. The battle was faught at Walloomsac, New York. So it did in fact occour in modern new york state. Indeed the presence of Bennington (plus the fact its the only battle that has significant text and does not link to the parent article Battle of Bennington indicates that this may be a fork.artcielSlatersteven (talk) 14:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Burgoyne then made the fateful decision to send an expeditionary force to the small town of Bennington, Vermont to capture these much needed supplies. [2] shows the British map of the battle site. The US forces were headed to Bennington which was, and is, in Vermont. Stark's brigade was encamped, in fact, at Bennington. [3] makes it clear why the battle is called "Battle of Bennington." The huge distance involved was less than the length of Manhattan Island. And the fact remains that the US encampment was actually in Vermont. Collect (talk) 15:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But the fact remains that the battle itself was not in the state. The article's criteria are pretty clear from the title; battles in Vermont, not battles associated with, very close to, or with an encampment in Vermont.--Yaksar (let's chat) 15:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly its Batles in Vermont this reenforces for me the idea that this is a content fork to show that Bennington was a battle in vermont.Slatersteven (talk) 15:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven - This is not a content fork. As the article was at the start of its history, it was just five links to each of the battles and the monuments for the first two. I started expanding it by using content from the individual battles' articles, I just hadn't gotten beyond Bennington yet, that's all. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)The British goal was Bennington. The supplies which were protected were in Bennington. The American encampment was in Bennington. Stark marched from Bennington. Would anyone argue that the siege of Vicksburg, since it was outside the city was therefore not at Vicksburg? I trust not. The other argument was that New York "claimed" Bennington - which would surely not have set well with the citizens of Bennington. [4] limns the story of the New York attempted seizure of land west of the Connecticut River, and the formation of "New Connecticut" and the rise of Ethan Allan. In some respects, Ticonderoga should be included as a part of the Vermont part of the American Revolution - but I am willing to keep it under New York :). AfD is not, however, supposed to be about what is shown here to be a "content dispute" at best. Collect (talk) 15:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or merge to History of Vermont. There appear to be too few articles to require a standalone list: only one substantive battle (Battle of Hubbardton), and one skirmish in the course of an armed robbery (St. Albans Raid)). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Although I was initially unsure, I feel it would be wrong to not at least make mention at this discussion of an ANI at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Potential_Canvassing_for_an_AfD.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Dummer's War partly occurred in Vermont, and Fort Dummer is in Vermont. Collect (talk) 19:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to point this out, but I cannot see any evidence of specific battles in this war that occurred in Vermont. Also, Fort Drummer, while certainly notable in Vermont's history, does not seem to have been involved in any actual battles.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dummer's War says "In response, Fort Dummer was built near Brattleboro, Vermont. The fort became a major base of operations for scouting and punitive expeditions into Abenaki country." It contributed to the war. Dream Focus 19:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I see your point. It served as a base for expeditions, but this is not an article about "battles where the troops or supplies came from Vermont."--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps then the page shoulod be enamed millitary history of Vermont. Becasue that is what is being addes. Material about campighns and wars and bases. not battles.Slatersteven (talk) 20:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Millitary history of Vermont it is. Several have suggested that in this AFD already, and it makes sense. Dream Focus 20:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, whoa, whoa. You can't just make unilateral decisions like that for a page under such high amount of debate. I'm not even sure I necessarily disagree with your move, but without any real discussion you can not just go and do that.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - (ec)Stop the "gaming". Dummer's War was, indeed, partly in Vermont. Lots of sources. Stark was indeed in Bennington with his troops. Thompson wrote of "incessant" inter-tribal wars. The Battle at Valcour Island is specifically between the British forces based by that island, and Arnold's forces at Isle La Motte. Vermont. Now can we stop deleting everything from the article, please? Collect (talk) 20:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Collect, read the source you linked about La Motte. It says the Benedict briefly retreated to there but left. I agree though, at least some of the deletions have been a bit too unnecessary.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The page was about battles not wars or campighns (or bases) it has now been moved so most of that material can now be incldued.Slatersteven (talk) 20:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Be so kind as to undo all the deletions. Collect (talk) 20:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the page has now been moved back again I don't see why material not about battles should be included.Slatersteven (talk) 20:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable topic; although it's a tad short of content right now, I have no doubt it is a good candidate for expansion and improvement over time. This article clearly falls under the eventualism umbrella. (As a side note, this is one of the very rare occasions when I have felt the need to !vote keep in a deletion debate; usually the conclusion of the deletion discussion has been a foregone conclusion long before I've shown up. I'm really surprised this discussion has been so hotly debated.) Risker (talk) 20:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Noting also that the place for discussing article names is, of all places, on the article talk page. Where a section has been started, hopefully taking the "delete !votes" on the basis of the article title off the table. Collect (talk) 21:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Admittedly, the article needs work. But the sources are there and meet GNG.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: As has been mentioned above, moving a page while it's at AfD is generally considered bad form. "Military history of Vermont" is probably the best ___location, I'd agree, as it would allow for the best coverage of the subject without word-gaming what is a battle and what is not etc. But it should be moved after the AfD closes, not before. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is a work in progress about a notable topic, given the amount of sources about the military history of Vermont. Qrsdogg (talk) 02:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Qrsdogg. I don't know what the final state of this article will be (a list, a Military history of Vermont article), but that's a matter for normal editing to sort out. In any event, the nom's claims are completely incorrect. It is a notable topic; something is not non notable just because it is a "menu of links"; this isn't just a "menu of links"; it would not be better as a template; and even if it would make a better template, that does not mean it makes a bad list. Did I leave anything out? postdlf (talk) 15:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/rename/expand. I accidentally came to this page, from a user's talk page, so my opinion is not very educated. However if the article is kept, it is better be renamed as suggested, to Military history of Vermont and expanded correspondingly. This will make the page more encyclopedic and systematic. Lolo Sambinho (talk) 18:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article makes sense, the main problem I see is that St. Albans Raid needs to be merged into this article. I also weak agree with the rename to Military history of Vermont, although this might lead to which units were sent to WWII and Vietnam, and famous military people, when what would be more interesting right now are maps and more details. I propose Military conflict in Vermont. Unscintillating (talk) 03:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's acutally the point, though - to allow for those kind of things to be included. MCinVT would also exclude the Battle of Bennington which is quite relevant to Vermont's military history. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - If the article is renamed "Military history of Vermont" then I think it should include information on Vermont people who fought in other wars, up to the present time. Steve Dufour (talk) 00:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOMINATOR WITHDRAWN The article is now of a sufficient standard (probably rescued) to become either a list or a full-fleged article. If nobody minds, I will move to Military history of Vermont. WikiCopter (♠ • ♣ • ♥ • ♦ • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 00:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.