Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Action of 13 December 1814

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. Sandstein 20:06, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Action of 13 December 1814

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

1. Fails WP:GNG. Non-notable. This is a skirmish within an engagement. Neither primary nor secondary sources consider this material enough to be a battle in its own right. 2. This is a nationalistic POV, written by an indefinitely suspended user with a history of adding essays to wikipedia. 3. It lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS necessary to meet WP:GNG. The afternoon firefight between a schooner and seven rowboats on 13 September 2014 is not described as a battle in its own right by reliable sources. 4. Given that this "battle" is not documented elsewhere, it is a new battle as theorised by the creator's original research. This battle honor is not recognized as such by the United States Navy. 5. Reading reputable sources on the conflict have demonstrated that the content is inaccurate, and that the events of 13 December 1814 take up less than a paragraph within the several pages covering the Battle of Lake Borgne Keith H99 (talk) 18:58, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Keith H99 (talk) 19:05, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Existing commentary on this essay created in 2009 posted here:

Talk:Action_of_13_December_1814#Request_for_deletion_in_December_2021
Comments added prior to creating this AfD. Keith H99 (talk) 19:16, 21 December 2021 (UTC) Reformatted wiki link Keith H99 (talk) 19:18, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:52, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:52, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:34, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:35, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:35, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything worth having to the subsequent battle. "British casualties unknown" implies a lack of research: the relevant ships' logs should survive and would record casualties. The events may have been a short-term tactical victory against boats from British ships which a properly researched article should be able to identify, but it was a strategic defeat for the US, since the schooner was burnt to prevent capture. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:18, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:57, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If this was a bona fide victory, then it would be documented as such. Nothing matches back to source material. He has created a fake battle, and given it a fake title. He's also created a wikipedia page about a fake military unit that is not documented anywhere. The skirmish that occurred is documented in one paragraph within the Battle of Lake Borgne article. The article contains his opinions and theories. His original research from 2009 -or as I think it should be referred to: fiction - has never been mirrored or sanctioned by the likes of the US Naval History and Heritage Command, because most of the content is not validated as truthful when tied back to source material. Why would a bona fide American victory have a British style of date?

I've been telling a friend about how this nonsense has been online for twelve years, totally unsourced, made up in large chunks is a great example of the bad press that wikipedia gets. It is unsourced, poorly written, and flag-waving nonsense from someone whose volatility saw him banned from wikipedia. It is preposterous that because the Action of 14 December at Lake Borgne was a British success (for which a battle clasp was issued in 1847), that some nationalistic MAGA moron decides to counterbalance it with a bogus battle set on the prior day that he thinks has to be invented to counteract it. By his own acknowledgement, he did not provide sources, he just wrote what matched his agenda.

The first contact was with three of Lockyer's launches and the schooner Sea Horse on December 13 at 3:45pm. At 2:00pm she had been sent to remove, or failing that to destroy, a stores dump at Bay St. Louis in order to prevent its capture by British forces. The schooner, with the protection of two land-based 6 pounder cannon,[12] saw off three approaching launches with grapeshot, who initially retired out of range. Sea Horse faced a subsequent rowboat attack with four more launches as reinforcements. This renewed attack was 'repulsed after sustaining for nearly half an hour a very destructive fire.'[3] In the face of superior numbers, the Sea Horse was scuttled and the store was set alight, an explosion occurring at 7:30pm with a large fire being visible thereafter.[12]

[3](Roosevelt 1900, p. 77.)

[12](Letter from Jones to Patterson dated 12 March 1815, within Brannan (ed). pp.487-490)

In essence, the exchange of fire between the schooner and several rowboats is summarized above, documented as a skirmish within the Lake Borgne engagement. It never was a battle, and what he reports is not reflected in source material for the most part.Keith H99 (talk) 21:10, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:16, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The secondary source of Roosevelt and the primary source of Jones's letter to Patterson are in the public domain. Please do access them, and see how what they recount is not reflected by the fiction that was created in 2009. Keith H99 (talk) 12:53, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources that support the contention that such a standalone battle ever existed.Keith H99 (talk) 20:01, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreement with comments above. Without speculating on the motive for this vanity piece and its dearth of facts and sources; with 98 new articles created, the issue may not be isolated: https://xtools.wmflabs.org/pages/en.wikipedia.org/Az81964444 Lindenfall (talk) 02:37, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is scary. By using a prefix of "Action of " and recording dates in a British English format, he seems to have invented a number of battles, including a US Navy battle honor of the "Action of 1 April 2010" with no sources whatsoever. Keith H99 (talk) 18:53, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's a remarkable production, overall. I'm a bit compromised with grandkids afoot these days, but wanting to help as I can. The truth will always out, and just may need a hand. Lindenfall (talk) 20:25, 11 January 2022 (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.