Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Pat To


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 18:40, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Battle of Pat To

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article fails WP:RS and WP:V, as with the deleted Articles for deletion/Battle of Hoa Da – Song Mao the article uses the same non RS dating 20+ years after the supposed events took place and the claimed casualty figures of 570 South Vietnamese killed or captured for the loss of 3 North Vietnamese is simply implausible Mztourist (talk) 04:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Delete -- In the context of the Vietname War, I doubt that an engagement between one battalion on each side is that significant. Furthermore, I am extremely dubious of the objectivity of the press in a totalitarian state, which is presumably where the two newspaper articles cited were published.  I find it difficult to beleive that such an engagement was not reported in newspapers on the other side, though they may well call it something else.  If more sources can be cited, please let me know and I will reconsider my vote.  Peterkingiron (talk) 19:32, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sing! 07:28, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - It was an entertaining read, especially the part "our infantry lost to aviation and artillery support? must be a traitor in our ranks!". Remind me of good ol' USSR. More seriously, this fails WP:V and WP:IRS in every possible way before even considering notability - one single source that is very dubious. Tigraan (talk) 13:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete because of the dubious source. If this were a solid source, it would be worth keeping; retrospective articles in reliable news media are definitely solid indicators of notability.  Nyttend (talk) 14:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:HOAX. No non-primary reliable sources verify the subject of this AfD's existence. Therefore, it is dubious that this event even existed.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:37, 19 February 2015 (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.