Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Action of 7 May 1968


 * 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   redirect. There seems to be a consensus that this subject does not meet the standards for a stand-alone article, and the content has already been merged elsewhere. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:21, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Action of 7 May 1968

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Action not notable, issue discussed at length on military history page here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 106. All salvageable information added to the page for Vietnamese ace Nguyen Van Coc Mztourist (talk) 19:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 12:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 12:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 12:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 12:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

One ping only 15:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - As expressed in the original discussion, I have concerns both about notability and neutrality (balance of sources) here. It's an intriguing article, and I'm loathe to reccomend deleting a Good Article. But I don't see this being notable enough for its own page. That said, it might be possible to merge this, and the other article (Action of 16 June 1968) into (say) Aerial victories of the VPAF in the Vietnam War)? - The Bushranger
 * Delete - per The Bushranger. The incident definately has a place in Wikipedia, but does not warrant an article of its own. Anotherclown (talk) 10:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep referenced to reliable sources. Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources do not a notable article guarantee. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I see you notable and raise you Verifiability, I also have concerns that if the result of this engagement had been the other way around, it would not have been brought to AFD.Jim Sweeney (talk) 23:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * For better or for worse, WP:N/WP:GNG hs become the sine qua non at AfD. And if the result had been the other way around, this absolutely would be at AfD and would be slam-dunk not-notable. Aircraft get shot down in wars. A lot. It's kinda what they do to each other. That this one had an unusual result merits mention on the page of the pilot scording the kills, but not its own article. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. While I feel that this article should also be given mention in Operation Rolling Thunder, that's not a reason to keep a redundant article. Weak Keep but ONLY because the size of Operation Rolling Thunder is too unwieldy to merge it into. The engagement itself is notable, and a subject of discussion and debate in US Navy and Air Force pilot training. Trusilver  06:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Trusilver please explain, how you see this as notable? I have already copied the details of the engagement to the Nguyen Van Coc page, everything else is just padding Mztourist (talk) 18:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry it took me so long to get back to this. I had forgotten to watch it and it slipped my mind for a few days. Trusilver  01:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If this is kept, the article needs some work - as it stands, it depicts the engagement almost entirely from the VPAF's POV. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   07:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak merge or keep. Although probably not a common way to voice support or opposition to a deletion, this is the only way I can express my thoughts on the matter.  The article is certainly well-written and deserves its Good Article status, but it may look better in the Operation Rolling Thunder article.  However, this article is long, and the merger of the two would make it overly so.  If merging is not feasible, then I'd have to say keep.   DCI talk 00:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * As noted above, if kept it needs work. While the article is currently neutral in tone, its presentation is strictly from the VPAF's side of the engagement. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Your argument is completely BS. We have articles on here which are written completely from the American and Australian perspectives (such as Battle of Khe Sanh, Battle of Coral-Balmoral, Battle of Gang Toi etc.), but no one has any problems with that. I find it extremely hypocritical that articles written with greater Vietnamese perspective are placed under such scrutiny. If this article is judged to be too pro-Vietnamese and therefore needs greater improvement, than naturally I would expect the same standards to be applied to ALL Vietnam War articles including the aforementioned articles. Anything less would be an unfair representation of history. Canpark (talk) 12:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I never said it was pro-Vietnamese. It isn't. The article itself is entirely neutral. It's hard to put into words exactly what it is, it just "feels" like you're seeing the VPAF pilot making the engagment, without "seeing" how the F-4 pilots viewed it. It's very very difficult to describe without sounding like accusing the article of being non-neutral, which was never my intent. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Canpark if you have specific POV issues on articles please raise them on the relevant talk pages or alternatively provide balancing sources Mztourist (talk) 16:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Canpark, unfortunatly I think you may be starting to take this personally, which is completely understandable (I would feel the same way about a GA I had contributed to suffering the same treatment). The issue for me is not so much the POV but the fact that the actions you have chosen to write about are not notable in and of themselves to warrant an entire article. Lastly, if you have reliable Vietnamese sources for any of the articles you mentioned above please be my guest to add them (as I was one of the main contributors for a couple of them). In my research I was unable to find much and as far as I am aware it doesn't exist (in English). Anotherclown (talk) 11:01, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello DCI. Per Mztourist above the relevant details are already included in the article in Nguyen Van Coc. As such a merge has already occurred. Anotherclown (talk) 00:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is true. I have crossed out my comments above.  I am still ambivialent on the matter, and will "recuse" myself from this debate.   DCI talk 01:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge if relevant information from this article, which has already been merged into Nguyen Van Coc, is merged to at least mention Nguyen in the appropriate section of Operation Rolling Thunder here. This is basically a 'delete' vote, since I don't think this article can stand on its own, notability-wise. ~  Pesco  So say•we all 04:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep - Outright deletion is hasty. Rather than erasing an article, WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM is better for this article. Perhaps merge per statements above. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Please review the discussion above, the action itself is not notable and any useful information has already been "rescued" into the Nguyen Van Coc page. The Operation Rolling Thunder page already contains sufficient background information. Mztourist (talk) 10:08, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * 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.