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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:12, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Bogan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

This Civil War soldier has the trivial distinction of firing the last cannon shot during Pickett's Charge, nothing else. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:32, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, obviously non-notable. Might actually pass the general notability criterion on a technicality, in that there are various US Civil War obsession publications, online and offline, that will mention him, but I'd have to suggest (without quite going George Carlin on the topic) that such sites and zines are not actually independent reliable publications, but devoted to finding and elevating the trivial as long as it has something to do with the Civil War. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 03:36, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Mentioned briefy in only one reliable source, namely the 1900 source that Dan Sickles co-authored (what a guy). I see no need to belittle Civil War scholars here. Specialized publications can be exceptionally useful, and it is up to us to make editorial judgments about notability and what is trivial. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:49, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 09:56, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Battle of Gettysburg and redirect to said article to preserve page history and hence author attribution. Polyamorph (talk) 16:58, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable and nothing here worth merging. There are so many claims to being the first or last to do this or that in the Civil War, and many of them contradictory (e.g. given the number of people who are said to have shot Stonewall Jackson, it is amazing he didn't die of lead poisoning on the spot), that one could debate whether any such claim found in just one source (particularly a speech given 35 years later), can be considered reliable. Further, it is far from certain that reference is being made to the last gun fired in the entire battle. It certainly can't be used (as is done) to claim the last shot (not the same as last gun fired, as in this context 'gun' means cannon) in the whole battle, given that the Kilcavalry charge had yet to occur - the source is clearly referring to the last cannon shot by this regiment during Pickett's charge and we can't go creating pages for the last member of each regiment to shoot during each confrontation within each battle. Other aspects of the page reflect the non-encyclopedic hyperbole typical of Civil War memorials - 'fought in every major engagement of the war'? Really? He was at Shiloh too? and Chattanooga? His role at G'burg is insignificant, only mentioned, it would seem, because he happened to be in the audience when a monument to his regiment was dedicated. No content from this page is appropriate for the Battle of G page, being nothing but trivia. A redirect is likewise inappropriate, since there are a number of equally insignificant Walter Bogans and there is no reason to assume that someone who comes to Wikipedia looking for a man named Walter Bogan is most likely interested in the Battle of Gettysburg. Be gone with it. Agricolae (talk) 17:53, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per Agricolae. Anotherclown (talk) 06:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've already recommended deleting, but Agricolae's analysis is apt and compelling. Thanks for noting that the 1900 reference is really nothing more than what we call in 21st century parlance a "shout out" to an old veteran in the audience at the dedication of a monument. I, too, was struck by the "every major engagement" line, but assumed it meant every major engagement that his particular unit fought in. It only takes a couple of hours of study of the Civil War to know that nobody fought in every major engagement of the war. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:54, 9 October 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.