Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Đồng Dương

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. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:21, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Đồng Dương

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

Article is based solely on Vietnamese sources in Vietnamese which have frequently amounted to WP:Propaganda in relation to the Vietnam War. I am unable to find any English language sources that indicate that a battle of this name even took place, indicating this may be WP:HOAX. The claimed South Vietnamese casualty figures are clearly absurd. Mztourist (talk) 10:04, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 10:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 10:19, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:38, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as potentially unverifiable event. The article is citing gov.vn which as a WP:BIASED source in this context. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:42, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per my cmts on the AFD for the Battle of Hà Vy article. Nothing on this event in Tucker "Encyclopdedia of the Vietnam War", Carland's "Stemming the Tide: May 1965 to October 1966" (US Army official history), nor even in the PAVNs own official history "Victory in Vietnam" by the Military History Institute of Vietnam (as far as I can see at least), sources which I would expect would have covered an event of the magnitude claimed. There is no coverage in WP:RS so its probably not notable per WP:GNG, although I'd say a hoax is a distinct possibility. Anotherclown (talk) 07:26, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unconfirmed event WP:V applies, with bias source; giving undue weight. Kierzek (talk) 16:28, 23 September 2016 (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.