Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vinh Xuan massacre

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. Happy to userfy this to allow the editor to continue to work on that missing extra source.

Spartaz Humbug! 16:06, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Vinh Xuan massacre

Vinh Xuan massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Page relies on a single source which has been deleted. I have searched for other WP:RS of this event but am unable to find anything other than copies of this page Mztourist (talk) 10:36, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 04:00, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 03:58, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 09:20, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- The references to Newsweek and an encyclopedia mean that this now has RS and should be kept. I accept that wartime propaganda is not an acceptable source, as it is liable to be invented or distorted, but that will not apply to stories that either side was telling against themselves. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:25, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Encyclopedia is further reading, not a source for this event. If you read the Newsweek article you will see that minimal detail is provided and it is all based on the claims of one eyewitness. Mztourist (talk) 12:58, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I share the nom's concerns about the sourcing of this. It would be preferable if something more neutral could be located if the article is going to be kept. Intothatdarkness 17:05, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:48, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:48, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per Peterkingirons reasoning. I think this is a clear case of not falling under wartime propaganda.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:27, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The Newsweek story gives no indication that this story is anything more - or anything less - than the memory of an individual soldier long after the war ended. The Newsweek story, which is short, is about a South Korean graduate student working to recover the brutal side of war. This story in the opening anecdote. What Newsweek claims to have uncovered is "a pattern of atrocities survivors say were perpetrated by South Korean soldiers." It is not enough to base an article on.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:01, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete One source is identified. More are necessary to establish
    WP:GNG. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:07, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Weak Delete, a valiant effort by
    WP:GNG requires multiple reliable sources that give significant coverage to the subject. Presently there is but the single source. Please notify me if more significant coverage is found elsewhere.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:17, 22 May 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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.