Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bình An/Tây Vinh massacre

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. There is consensus here that this article does not sufficiently meet

WP:V. Vanamonde (talk) 09:09, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Bình An/Tây Vinh massacre

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

This page has been tagged for refimprove since November 2011 but no additional refs have been provided. It relies largely on a single reference which does not appear to be WP:RS. If 1200 people really were massacred, you would expect more coverage than this. It may be an exaggeration or may be a WP:HOAX like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vinh Xuan massacre, whichever it is it should not be retained on Wikipedia unless WP:RS are given. Mztourist (talk) 03:37, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:05, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:05, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:05, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:05, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:05, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:05, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- perhaps Wikiprojects Vietnam and South Korea should be consulted? Language barrier would be a big issue for English-only editors. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:43, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I came here from WPKOREA but I don't speak Korean well enough to help. Hopefully some native speakers will be able to provide a review of sources. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:52, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:50, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I reached out to both projects, but there's been no feedback. In view of that, I suggest deleting the article, as an unconfirmed event, or a potential hoax. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:12, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - that it would be a hoax is pure speculation. clearly there are some sources. keep is the best option so that users can work on it. BabbaQ (talk) 17:44, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is the issue, no-one has worked on it and no WP:RS have been provided since 2011, so it may well be a hoax. Mztourist (talk) 03:09, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:49, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unconfirmed event
WP:RS sources. Kierzek (talk) 17:53, 19 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.