Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battery Hooper

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 -- Samir 03:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Battery Hooper

Battery Hooper (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

An insignificant article about one small earthwork fortification in the defenses of Cincinnati. The site is currently home to a private museum which uses the earthwork for tourism and reenactments. No action occurred on the site during the Civil War. Spacini 19:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep What makes you say it's insignificant, and why should that matter even if it is? A quick google-skim shows it to be a bona fide historic site & museum and the subject of lengthy features in Smithsonian Magazine and the Kentucky Post — iridescent (talk to me!) 20:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep- as Iridescent shows, there is substantial coverage in significant sources. J Milburn 21:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge Since the site is now the location of the museum, I'd merge the two together. MarkinBoston 21:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Merge with what? The museum doesn't have a separate page — iridescent (talk to me!) 21:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete There were over 20 earthwork fortifications built for the defense of Cincinnati in both Ohio and Kentucky. Would we presume to have one article for each of these gun emplacements? Would we attempt to do this for Bowling Green or Louisville, Kentucky--both of which had significant earthwork fortifications--or any other majorly fortified city? Hooper Battery can be addressed/merged with the rest of the fortificatons in the Cincinnati defenses in the article about the Defense of Cincinnati. I never said the museum wasn't bona fide, just private. Spacini 03:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment While I realise the Cincinnati batteries are probably less well known, there's certainly precedent for doing just that^{1 2 3 4 5 6 7} — iridescent (talk to me!) 12:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Carom 22:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with Defense of Cincinnati, or move to James A. Ramage Civil War Museum (which is a city museum, hence public rather than private). The museum would seem more "notable" in Wikipedia terms than its location. --Dhartung | Talk 17:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Move to James A. Ramage Civil War Museum. The site has historic significance. I don't see any strong case for deleting this article. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 12:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - It's a historic military site. It seems there might be a case for renaming. --Oakshade 17:13, 27 August 2007 (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.