Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apache (Viet Cong soldier) (2nd nomination)


 * 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 to Carlos Hathcock. There is a reasonably well-formed consensus that the article should not exist as-is. In the interest of maintaining sourced content I would encourage someone to merge in the salient points and sources at the destination, but I am loathe to close as a merge and slap tags everywhere, which have a nasty habit of being dutifully ignored and the article left to fester. Stifle (talk) 16:07, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Apache (Viet Cong soldier)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The subject of the article is non-notable. It does not satisfy any of the guidelines listed in WP:BIO, particularly, WP:MILNG. The subject was NOT awarded an award for valor, never mind a high one (as far as we know, since there's essentially no info about them), did NOT hold a "rank considered to be a flag, general or air officer, or their historical equivalents", was NOT a Chief of Army or Chief of Staff, did NOT play an important role in a significant military event, command a substantial body of troops in combat, make a material contribution to military science, they were NOT the undisputed inventor of a form of military technology, nor were they recognized by their peers as an authoritative source on military matters/writing. As far as we know at least. Since we don't even know this person's name, birth, or any other info. It's just a person killed by a sniper. Now. Onto sources. In the 1st AfD it was claimed that the subject was mentioned in numerous reliable sources. As it turns out most of these sources were works of fiction or pulp embellishments. See the talk page here. The rest were primary sources. What's left is just a casual, passing mention in newspaper stories.

Due to lack of notability and lack of coverage in reliable sources (as opposed to works of fiction) the article should be deleted, with whatever content is useful merged to Carlos Hathcock. Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:23, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2014 January 11.  — cyberbot I  Notify Online 10:46, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep The nomination makes good points about the nature of the topic but proposes merging some of the material and this can't be done if we delete the page. This is for both practical and legal reasons - see WP:MAD.  See Erwin König for a similar claimed sniper kill which was also fictionalised later. Andrew (talk) 11:44, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * this can't be done if we delete the page - ?? Of course it can. This is for both practical and legal reasons  - ??? What legal reasons? Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:08, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If you delete a page then only admins can read it and so this makes merger of the content difficult; the legal issues are detailed at WP:MAD. And the primary issue here is WP:SK, "The nominator ... fails to advance an argument for deletion — perhaps only proposing a non-deletion action such as moving or merging."  You tell us that the article has some issues but fail to explain why the alternatives to deletion which you suggest are not sufficient. Andrew (talk) 12:45, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The simplest answer to all that - one used most often, and ... detailed at WP:MAD - is to turn the existing article into a redirect. Merge/redirect *is* an alternative to deletion. The article should EITHER be deleted OR merge/redirected. This is a frequent outcome of AfD. WP:SK does not apply. But it simply shouldn't be an independent article as it completely fails notability guidelines.
 * And looking at the Carlos Hathcock article it seems that whatever is useful in the Apache article, is already in there so there actually doesn't need to be much merging. The mention of merging was a suggestion of a compromise solution. Now quit it with the acronym wiki lawyering. The subject of the article is not notable.Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You should please suggest your compromises on the article's talk page before you bring them here, especially as the topic was already kept at a previous AFD discussion. AFD is not cleanup. Andrew (talk) 13:04, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Or I shouldn't bother to compromise in the first place, since the article clearly fails notability guidelines? The previous AfD ended in keep because commentators were too lazy to actually look at the sources, which were works of fiction + some abuse directed at the delete voters. Now, again, please stop with the disingenous and obscurantist wiki lawyering and address the substance of the issue. We have a deletion policy on Wikipedia. We have a notability threshold on Wikipedia. Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:10, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If I struck out/never included the part of my nomination that says "with whatever content is useful merged to Carlos Hathcock" would it have changed anything? No. So stop seizing upon an essentially unimportant side issue to derail this nomination.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:12, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete &mdash; This person almost certainly never existed. There is one primary source for her existence, which then, per Marek, blossomed into thousands of dependent unquestioning repetitions.  There seem to be two reasons why scholars, other than Jerry Lembke (see new material recently added to article), haven't taken time to debunk this myth: First, even as a myth it's not notable (unlike, e.g. the myth of the girl in San Francisco spitting on the returning soldier).  Second, it's so obvious to historians of the Vietnam war and to sociologists and historians who study the cultural aftermath of the war in the US that this story is bullshit that they don't feel a need to even discuss it.  Lembke, an expert on representations of the war in American culture and folklore and the only scholar to consider the story in detail, is completely dismissive of its veracity.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:46, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge to Carlos Hathcock. Nearly all sources discussing this alleged individual discussed her in the context of Hathcock's story.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 18:04, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Speedy Delete This piece should have never been written to begin with.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:04, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This isn't a vote. You need to explain your rationale and how it relates to Wikipedia's notability policy. Specifically, which of the criteria listed at WP:MILNG the article satisfies. Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:18, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: if the above seems confusing, it's because user Mike Searson changed his vote from "keep" to "speedy delete". Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:47, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I guess we cannot go for notability when you delete all the sources, and not just talking about Henderson such as Chandler, VanZwoll and Haun.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 02:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. &mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:27, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. &mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. I would not be opposed to keeping an entry like this specifically for the fictional character frequently misidentified through endless photographs of female Viet Cong soldiers. I saw dozens in Google Images... every woman named Apache is someone different. At least, if we make her stick, we would have the idea covered. Poeticbent talk 21:45, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The trouble is that there aren't reliable sources to establish the notability of even the fictional character.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:22, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That's sort of saying that the article should be kept as an example of the kind of article that Wikipedia should NOT have. Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:18, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * There's already no shortage of examples of that kind of article.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete As I pointed out in an earlier discussion on the article talk page, there is no real independent confirmation of this person's existence. All trails lead back to the original Hathcock story with no other verification. I would not oppose a merge, but this has no business existing as a stand-alone article. I missed the original deletion request, but would have voted delete then, too. Intothatdarkness 15:07, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. Sources seem to be pretty poor, not sufficient to defend this on notability due to coverage. Still, I'd like to hear from a Vietnamese speaker first, maybe there are Vietnamese sources for her? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 16:18, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * See first AfD . Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:54, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Major Comment. I just came across a discussion at http://wikipediocracy.com/ concerning a user called Trongphu who was blocked in January 2012 over his attempt to have this article deleted. Wikipediocracy was not interested in the article - but with now Wikipedia bureaucracy had placed the user in Catch 22 situation because he could get unblocked by editing at the English Wikipedia where he was banned from editing. But that is not my concern, what ticks me off is that the block was made because he asked for this article to be deleted in  Janaury 2012 two years ago. He was were shouted down, accused of being insulting (well when faced with such pig-headedness who would lose their cool?), and was given an indefinite ban. Yet now in Janaury 2014, with no sense of irony (timing?) or hypocrisy, the same discussion topic is back on the agenda and now it looks like most people are backing what Trongphu said all along. How utterly, utterly risible, self mocking and sanctimonious. It also proves most of everything on here is done with opinion not facts. Shameful, truly shameful. At the very least, someone in authority - if this article is deleted  - should write to this Trongphu  and offer them apology at the glibness of it all. 86.182.42.81 (talk) 16:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge to Carlos Hathcock. This should include all the discussion of the myth and its continuing basis. Alternatively it could be merged to 'American cultural myths of the Vietnam War' or other similar page. The myth, and the sources saying why it seems to have no basis, needs to be on wikipedia somewhere so that people can search for it and find out why it appear it was a myth (like 'Colonel ~Trung~', the mythical PAVN AF ace). Buckshot06 (talk) 20:05, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep, although "Apache" almost certainly did not exist, the character and the nature of how American soliders in Vietnam viewed females on the opposing side has been well documented, most obviously in pages 114-115 of Lembcke's book (as cited in the article). Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:10, 19 January 2014 (UTC).
 * That is not sufficient to satisfy the notability criteria, as outlined in WP:MILNG. If anything, it's something that can be simply mentioned in the Carlos Hathcock article. If there was an article on "Vietnam war myths" or "Sociology of Vietnam War" or something like that (provided it could be well sourced) then it would go in there. By itself, you can't write a viable article around a single mention in a book, particularly when the info is so sparse. And oh yeah, does not satisfy notability criteria. Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:45, 19 January 2014 (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.