Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hill 55


 * 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   keep, the delete arguments given have been refuted, or made moot since the article has been improved (good job, although it looks weird with more refs and links than prose). - Bobet 17:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Hill 55

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This hill lacks notability since it has not been (and it does not appear likely that it will) be covered in 3rd party sources. The only reason this hill might even close to notable is because Carlos Hathcock once operated from there according to the article on him. However, this does not appear to make the location itself notable or likely to be covered by reliable sources. --Hydraton31 (talk) {Contributions} 20:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete I agree with hydraton31 above.Also the article is extremely short and would be a canidate for csd-A1. Xp54321 ( Hello!, Contribs ) 20:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.   —Nick Dowling (talk) 23:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Buckshot06(prof) 00:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete - Non-notable in this form considering the lack of any information to support the short stub. The stub itself is vague and presents nothing except for geographical location.  If more information was provided in support of the battle and its participants it could be elaborated on.  As it stands, my DELETE recommendation is actually longer than the article. - Trippz (talk) 01:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete  This stub provides zero verifiable information on the precise location of Hill 55. Artene50 (talk) 02:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - It appears it was a significant base of operations during the Vietnam War.  --Oakshade (talk) 23:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I am seeing arguments for cleanup, and not deletion. Very strange that this would be nominated when Hill 55 was just in the news this week. Google Scholar is also promising with several essays that discuss it to some degree. Google Books has two books entirely about Hill 55 in the first five search results, Heart of the Third Sector, Hill 55 by George A Hill - 2005, and Hill - 55: Just South of Danang Vietnam by David E. Adams - 2002, 1968-1970 in GoogleNews returns a dozen articles about it, and all dates includes a hundred resulsts. Personally I do not see a possible way we could delete this under any existing AFD policy, and I'm afraid the A1 speedy delete claims have not given the topic due diligence in this case. I know nothing about the subject, I'm not the person to fix the problems, but to CSD a promising stub would be a mistake. MrPrada (talk) 07:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Under normal military naming practices, any hill which is 55 metres high is frequently called 'Hill 55', so Google searches on this particular hill are unlikely to be effective. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * All the more reason for a disambiguation and/or a stub highlighting some of the major ones. As an aside, I believe all of the links I've provided above refer to the same Hill 55, especially the two books. MrPrada (talk) 18:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  16:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of  &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per MrPrada. Jclemens (talk) 01:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable. Please see User:Nick Dowling's comment above, that it is a common practice to name hills 55 metres high, Hill 55.  There may be dozens of these and nothing makes this one noteworthy.Renee (talk) 01:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As noted above, while that is true, the numerous sources I listed pertain to the same Hill 55 in Da Nang which is notable. MrPrada (talk) 00:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:N. Masterpiece2000   ( talk ) 03:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. As stated Hill 55 is just an arbitrary designation, but this Hill 55 does have some events associated with it including the establishment there of E.J. Land's "sniper school" which resulted in Hathcock's legendary accomplishments. Otherwise, though, it is just one of many "hot" locations in Vietnam that come up again and again in accounts but are otherwise undistinguished, e.g. as the site of a major battle or objective. I think this one is easily sourced (try "Hill 55" + "Da Nang" in Google Books, for instance) and while its notability is not great it is more than just another hill. --Dhartung | Talk 07:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't think this is really a WP:N issue--There are plenty of King Henry's of England, too. It seems to me to be more of a WP:V issue--is the 'Hill 55' being talked about by any particular WP:RS really identified with one or more other RS's Hill 55, sufficient to document coverage?  If there's one notable Hill 55, the fact that there are N+1 other, non-notable Hill 55's doesn't impinge on that notability. Jclemens (talk) 15:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep sufficient sources are present. Every scene of battle in a war is a reasonable article topic. Considering the extreme detail that is included in military histories, there will be no lack of further sources, and this does apply to every one of them.  DGG (talk) 22:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Judging by the improvements made thus far, this is an obvious keep per WP:HEY. MrPrada (talk) 01:44, 18 June 2008 (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.