Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edenton Bell Battery

:{{la|Edenton Bell Battery}} ([{{fullurl:Edenton Bell Battery|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edenton Bell Battery}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

It's never been clear what this article is about: the artillery unit, or the cannon that belonged to the unit. Either way, it's never had proper sourcing, nor have any articles ever linked to it. Sadly, the creating editor, when queried about these, will only say that questioning its notability is {{diff|Talk:Edenton Bell Battery|prev|298219775|offensive}} and {{diff|User talk:R'n'B|prev|295220474|racist}}. Not that this is relevant to the AFD, but y'all should know what you're getting into. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 05:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• Withdrawing per BusterD's suggestion below. So long as someone's shepherding this article, I'm fine with keeping it (although I think that merging it into Edenton, North Carolina might be better in the long run). BTW, I never thought that it was a hoax; just that it was an orphaned article with no sources or references. Between that and the way it wasn't even clear on its topic (artillery unit or artillery itself?), it wasn't an asset to Wikipedia as-is. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 03:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Deletion is not clean-up. The article appears to be about a notable military unit from the United States Civil War. It is referenced to reliable sources. The US civil war is one of the most carefully documented and thoroughly studied events in history; I am fairly confident even more sources exist than even what is listed in the article; however what is already present in the article is enough to consider this a valid subject, even if the article is somewhat confused. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Bigtime. Googlebooks turns up lots of RS, and while this page isn't finished, it's a fair first attempt from an editor who identifies himself as fourteen years old. Not biting newbies, this page needs wikilove and citation, not deletion. BusterD (talk) 12:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
• :Comment I'd like to commend the nominator of this process, even though we disagree. Editor has shown restraint in helping new user, has made substantial improvements to the article, and has been dealing with a fourteen year old's logic and temper in a patient way. For me, the bottom line is this isn't an apparent hoax, it is a remarkable and verifiable story, and discovery of reliable sources on Google books puts the unit past the notability bar, IMHO. There's substantial room for page growth, and lots of sourcing to seed it. I'll volunteer to make improvements myself, and list it under "expansion needed" at the ACW task force to do list. New user could use some mentoring. BusterD (talk) 13:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
• ::Comment I've roughed in several sources for examination. I'll fix these when I get an evening free later this week. BusterD (talk) 14:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
• :::Suggestion I have zero objections to the way Dori has handled this situ so far, but it might demonstrate good faith and provide a sense of accomplishment to the young user if this nom were to be withdrawn at this point. I pledge to personally watch this page myself and provide the basic cleanup; I'd rather farm this work out to the page creator and will provide guidance if I can be helpful. BusterD (talk) 20:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Notable battery. Churches donated their bells to be made into cannons. Significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. (At first, I expected it was an article about electricity). Edison (talk) 03:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep: there now appears to be quite a few sources about this military unit following rescue work mentioned above. I believe that the article probably meets notability guidelines and can be expanded/improved by interested editors. — AustralianRupert (talk) 03:42, 7 July 2009 (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.