Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Le Van Cho


 * 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.  Sandstein  08:38, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Le Van Cho

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Being interviewed by Ken Burns does not a notable soldier make. No substantial sources discuss him. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:53, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:23, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:27, 22 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS to meet WP:GNG. Repeated references to the Ken Burns series isn't SIGCOV. Mztourist (talk) 07:36, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * As documented below, vi:Lê Văn Cho's wartime experiences have enough coverage by prominent sources to make him "notable" per guidelines in WP:NBIO. -Darouet (talk) 18:40, 23 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep (changed to Weak Delete, see discussion below) - Le Van Cho (vi:Lê Văn Cho) is a minor figure in the Vietnam War, but his appearance in the Burns documentary resulted in descriptions of his combat and experiences in multiple media sources, including the PBS documentary itself, the Alfred A. Knopf book based on the documentary , and minor references in The Ellsworth American newspaper , and a far-left socialist UK newspaper the Socialist Worker . One of Van Cho's experiences during the war is described in a 1988 publication by the Dong Nai publishing house in Vietnam . While Lê Văn Cho is a minor figure of the Vietnam War from an American perspective, his being featured in a major documentary has led to coverage in a number of prominent sources. This coverage meets the requirements of WP:NBIO, that
 * On a philosophical level, we also need to take WP:WORLDVIEW into account. Much of our Vietnam War content on Wikipedia represents American or anglophone viewpoints and experiences. This is a necessary artifact of more extensive anglophone media interest in and contact with American or Australian participants in the war. Abiding by WP:NBIO directives, we can work to make sure Vietnamese experiences described in reliable sources are also represented on Wikipedia, and should do so by maintaining this short biography. -Darouet (talk) 22:52, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * On a philosophical level, we also need to take WP:WORLDVIEW into account. Much of our Vietnam War content on Wikipedia represents American or anglophone viewpoints and experiences. This is a necessary artifact of more extensive anglophone media interest in and contact with American or Australian participants in the war. Abiding by WP:NBIO directives, we can work to make sure Vietnamese experiences described in reliable sources are also represented on Wikipedia, and should do so by maintaining this short biography. -Darouet (talk) 22:52, 22 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment there isn't SIGCOV of him and certainly nothing that establishes that he is "worthy of notice" or "note"—that is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded". In relation to your worldview comments, they still need to have SIGCOV whether that is in English, Vietnamese or another language and again he doesn't meet that minimum requirement. Mztourist (talk) 02:58, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * re: certainly nothing that establishes that he is "worthy of notice" or "note" - the sources I linked concluded he was worthy of notice, and that’s why they interviewed him extensively, and then wrote about him. His wartime experiences are “remarkable” and that is why they are remarked upon by sources. -Darouet (talk) 04:37, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The sources are limited in scope and largely repetitive and his wartime experiences are WP:MILL for a PAVN soldier. Mztourist (talk) 08:55, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I like the WP:MILL essay. It explains that multiple high-quality maps document the existence of millions of roads on earth, the vast majority of which don't require Wikipedia articles to describe them. I agree with that.
 * Here, the equivalent would be the registers listing the millions of people who served in the armed forces and/or died during this conflict. Those people are often (not always) mentioned somewhere in reliable documents, and they shouldn't have articles written about them. But of those millions of people, very few have their experiences described in detail by a Ken Burns documentary, or by a book that's closely related to the documentary. That documentation in very prominent sources, and the resulting passing references in a few others, passes WP:GNG and WP:NBIO, as I've documented above. -Darouet (talk) 18:37, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Being an interviewee in a Ken Burns documentary doesn't make a person notable, not without SIGCOV in multiple RS, which Le Van Cho doesn't have. All this page says is he was a PAVN soldier who served near the DMZ and took part in the 1968 battle of Quang Tri, which is completely run of the mill for a PAVN soldier during the war. Mztourist (talk) 03:21, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You edit a lot on military history topics, which is great. But as a result of your expertise in the area, something that's fascinating and quite striking to other people is obvious to you. Lê Văn Cho's military experiences were prominently featured in that documentary, and as a consequence also in a book by Alfred A. Knopf, and mentions in a few other places . I know everything he says seems obvious to you, but it's not to other people, and this coverage definitely meets the bar for WP:NBIO. -Darouet (talk) 03:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * One passing mention in the book. Not a good sign. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:46, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Clarityfiend and Mztourist: I've gone back to the Knopf book and Clarityfiend is correct: the book only mentions Van Cho in passing one time. Furthermore, I've gone back to the documentary, and as far as I can tell, Van Cho is mentioned only briefly twice, in two episodes (based on a transcript search). This is contrary to my recollection but I must have been wrong. I'm modifying my vote to a "weak delete." It is painful to destroy something you've brought into the world but you both have convinced me — an inclusionist! — that coverage is minimal. I am not voting for a full "delete" since the assemblage of sources does make a case for keeping the article, demonstrating that Van Cho's experiences are notable. -Darouet (talk) 05:37, 24 May 2021 (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.