- 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. Liz Read! Talk! 21:25, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Assessment of the Battle of Long Tan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is really an essay, and indeed is structured as such. There's way too much compare and contrast of primary sources (admittedly cited in secondary works) This should be edited down and merged into the main article - I can't see any real reason why this specific battle should get a rather unusual "Assessment of " Unbh (talk) 03:49, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Vietnam, and Australia. Unbh (talk) 03:49, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Battle of Long Tan is already a large page with a detailed Aftermath and assessment section (that this page largely repeats) for what was a minor and inconclusive 4 hour firefight. There is simply no justification for this page, nor for Order of battle for the Battle of Long Tan. The fact that the battle has WP:SIGCOV mainly in Australian sources doesn't justify 3 pages about it. No doubt Australian Milhist users will pile-on once again. Mztourist (talk) 09:20, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. If it is deleted then a lot of its content will probably need to be merged into the main article rather than deleted out of hand. That will take an editor who knows what they're talking about. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:06, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Battle of Long Tan. Apart from the more detailed "Assessment" section, there isn't much here that already isn't in the primary article. I don't see a compelling reason to warrant a separate article for these extra details. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:39, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Battle of Long Tan, what is not redundant and is RS sources, accordingly. Otherwise, is just a content fork (see WP:CFORK) and it is unnecessary for this page as a separate article. Kierzek (talk) 17:43, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with Merge out of same reasons. Geysirhead (talk) 05:57, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I already have constant complaints that Battle of Long Tan is too large, and you guys want to merge all this material into it? No. Just no. WP:SIZE is solidly against a major expansion of an article that already contains 95 K of readable prose. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a WP:CFORK. It is encouraged in circumstances like this. (WP:SPINOUT and WP:SPINOFF) I completely agree with Mztourist's contention that the Battle of Long Tan has attracted far too much attention, both in the literature and on Wikipedia (and the article gets around 500 page views per day with some huge spikes) and has become a poster child for the Matthew effect. There are many Vietnamese, American and even Australian actions in Vietnam that have received too little attention, and that doesn't seem likely to change any time soon, but we are not here to RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:55, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I am with Hawk on this. This seems like a valid subarticle. If the main article was short, merge would make sense. As things stand, split was warranted. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:46, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Already argued before at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Assessment of the Battle of Long Tan. Discussion on talk page on the original article for the Battle of Long Tan, decided that article was too long and despite some culling, it was decided to split out the assessment section. Now for this article, it is well sourced by multiple reliable sources and clearly passes WP:SIGCOV. It probably does have disproportionate coverage but that is because of the relevant interest in the battle for New Zealand and Australia military.— NZFC(talk)(cont) 22:03, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that a page has been AFDed 2 years ago doesn't preclude another AFD. The main page is already vast and adequate to satisfy any reader, while the assessment page contains little that isn't already in the Aftermath section of the main page, so this is an unnecessary and overlong fork. Mztourist (talk) 02:49, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Consensus can change but I would like to know what the nominator thinks has changed. And what I'm seeing is that the main article gets 550 views per day, making it the 14th most popular article in Category:Battles and operations of the Vietnam War, and the assessment article gets 20 views per day, which is still above average for a Vietnam War article, indeed it ranks it the 120th most popular in the category, so it does seem that some readers are not satisfied with the main article alone. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:24, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- We have no way of knowing if those 20 Users view the page because they're not satisfied with the main page or just because its there. Using that same logic, 530 Users are satisfied with the main page and don't see the need for the Assessment page. I don't believe that [m]any of the 13 more popular Battles and operations of the Vietnam War pages even have separate assessment pages. Mztourist (talk) 07:23, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mztourist: while I understand that already having a deletion discussion doesn't preclude discussing the article again, it was more to point out as Hawkeye7 said that I don't think anything has changed from the previous one and the reason it was kept then.— NZFC(talk)(cont) 05:14, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Merging all the relevant information would make the main article unwieldy. There's clearly a lot of in-depth analysis, which makes a separate article appropriate. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 23:58, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is a fine example of an article spinoff. I would prefer a different article title, such as "Military analysis of..." as I believe that is more accurate to the contents. Ovinus (talk) 00:12, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Hawkeye7 and Ficaia. Cabrils (talk) 22:23, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with main article about the battle. This feels like extended and slightly ponderous duplication of what exists in the Aftermath section of the main Long Tan article. I understand the power of regional attraction to an article, but in the larger scheme of the war Long Tan was one battle among many. Intothatdarkness 18:23, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Certainly too much detail to merge into the Battle of Long Tan page. If I was coming up with more comprehensive approach I would:(1) Rename this page to Aftermath of the Battle of Long Tan with extra information from the main Long Tan page, (2) trim the existing assessment section on the main Long Tan page, (3) trim down some of the content on this page that is covered by other pages and (4) look what else can be split from the main Long Tan page. Gusfriend (talk) 09:45, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Support keep, if it would trim or legitimately split content from the long main article that would be beneficial and it would not be redundant. It can be achieved by discussion and regular editing. Spudlace (talk) 23:36, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.