Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vietnam War myths

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 merge to Vietnam War. If that article becomes too lop-sided, we can look at a spinoff article at that point. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:52, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnam War myths

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats

)

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

Wikipedia is not an essay. Currently it uses just one source, and I believe improving this article is impossible without making a

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:04, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:04, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Vietnam War. This seems more appropriate as a single reliable source on the main article than a separate article. Simonm223 (talk) 13:07, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with article on Vietnam War. The article on Vietnam War Myths is a comparatively brief article, and a merge should not prove too difficult. Vorbee (talk) 14:39, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Vietnam War, I agree there is not enough here to warrant an independent article. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 18:56, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Do we really need another beachfront for unsourced conspiracy theories about a war? This is a book blurb-turned-article based on one source, and we don't need that here.
  chatter) 23:11, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Rename and expand to
  π, ν) 03:38, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Rename and expand to
  talk) 00:15, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete This appears to be a summary of a single journal article, so is not useful. More broadly, we try to avoid writing articles from the perspective of myth busting: it is much better to write them by stating what happened, and covering differing accounts of events where relevant. As such, the content in this article is not suitable to be merged anywhere. Nick-D (talk) 01:53, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Cannot imagine a NPOV article under this rubric. Agree with Nick-D that it is best to avoid writing articles from the perspective of myth busting. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:46, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to historiography or keep. Cheers to the nominator for pinging me. A review article is serious evidence of notability for a term in historiography. With respect to Nick, "Review Articles," being field summaries, are scholarly tertiaries which indicate that a topic isn't just written about across a coatrack of secondaries, but has a genuine topical existence. On top of that there's a contemporary and modern monograph on direct topic in bibliography, and a trivial scholar search produces three unnoted monographs and three scholarly articles. The question for me is up scale the topic to historiography, or keep the "myth" question separate from the general historiography. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:57, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  There is a big difference between historiography and myth-busting. I fear that the latter would become a magnet for

  WP:FRINGE. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:21, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  since 2011 there seem a to have only been one FRINGE/ESSAY edit. The topic may be best served as a subsection of a historiography article though. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:47, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to Historiography of the Vietnam War & keep: A valid topic and this would be a good start. Sources are suitable for the subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:44, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]