Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Hill 723

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. j⚛e decker ^talk 19:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Hill 723

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

Unable to find WP:RS, other than a small mention in one book, web search generally comes back to this page. Page is vaguely worded with no real detail and relies on a single non WP:RS. Page appears to be an attempt to dice up Operation Lam Son 719 but without providing any useful or verifiable information Mztourist (talk) 03:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero sources; appears to be an unsourced fork of Operation Lam Son 719. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I am extremely dubious of the objectivity of the media in a totalitarian state, which is presumably where the book cited were published. I find it difficult to beleive that such an engagement was not reported in newspapers on the other side, though they may well call it something else. If more sources can be cited, please let me know and I will reconsider my vote. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:34, 13 February 2015 (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.