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 merge to Battle of Khe Sanh. The unsourced bulleted list has been converted to sourced prose that now fits well as a paragraph in the target article. Sandstein 06:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Khe Sanh in popular culture

[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:IPC, these lists of indiscriminate trivia are supposed to be well sourced. This one isn't. Being spun off like this means it will never properly integrate into proper prose either, and will likely remain a list of indiscriminate trivia. Gigs (talk) 14:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Battle of Khe Sanh, at least the parts that can be sourced, which is almost none of the current article. Not sure of the relevance of the list as a stand alone article. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP rules do not tell us how to create "lists of indiscriminate trivia", they tell us how to avoid them; by making a discriminate inclusion criterion.

The nomination ignores the distinctions in WP:IPCA: "Per WP:IPC, these lists of indiscriminate trivia are supposed to be well sourced". This is only a valid point by accident. Turns out spinoffs are supposed to be well sourced, also, but because they are summary articles, not because of IPCA. This is not a section in "Battle of Khe Sanh" we are discussing, it is a WP:CFORK#Article spinouts: "Summary style" articles article (Note: IPCA should include at least a mention of sourcing, but it does not).

Profoundly invalid logic follows: "Being spun off like this means it will never properly integrate into proper prose either, and will likely remain a list of indiscriminate trivia." Again, spinoff is valid. Prose is not dependent on the source, but on editors who can create it. Discrimination is a choice for editors to the article.

I am going to play devil's advocate and bring up the subject of POV Magnetism, as well, because I have seen too many closers Delete based on a wild card rationale that no one mentioned in the AFD. That, again, is a matter for editors on the page to deal with, and Deletion is not a valid substitution for elbow grease.

WP:DEL requires "thorough attempts to find reliable sources". RS:

Siege at Khe Sanh: Mission at Gamespot

Greasy Lake & other stories; T. Coraghessan Boyle, page 2

The short-timers; Gustav Hasford, Harper & Row, 1979

etc, etc. Sources are unusually easy to find in this case, although there are many to find. I will add the sources above. Thoroughness is not required in this case, only spare time. Easy to find sources, easier to tag entries ((citation needed)). Not a problem for this deletion review. I am much more concerned about completely unnecessary levels of POV material entering the article through quotes, such as some author's opinion of General Westmoreland, etc (which I will paraphrase, instead, and removing the truly trivial "makes the Battle of Khe Sanh look like a picnic" cameo appearance in popular culture, as an example of how I believe the article can be improved).

Anarchangel (talk) 01:00, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article is now condensed and sourced.

Anarchangel (talk) 03:20, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why maintain it as a spin off if it's so short? It just becomes a dumping ground for every pop culture reference that people might randomly come across. We aren't TV Tropes. Gigs (talk) 04:23, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge - this is the exact kind of stuff that we work on trimming from articles and that wikipedia is mocked for. Are any of these sources actually about the concept of this battle in popular culture? This looks like it's just a bunch of individual references. A merge could be done, but only if it's done carefully to avoid just a "In popular culture" section with a list of trivia. Yaksar (let's chat) 07:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per. Dennis Brown. V7-sport (talk) 01:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Dennis Brown. Moray An Par (talk) 22:27, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Anarchange. When notable cultural artifacts, or particular distinctive human activities, are used as significant elements in notable fiction and other notable cultural phenomena, then a discussion of them is encyclopedic. All that is necessary is to show that the activity or artifact is used in a significant way, and this can be appropriately referenced to the work directly. References are needed, but they can be supplied. Any of the items that are not significant can be removed after discussion of the talk page of the article. Such a list is not indiscriminate, for it discriminates in 3 ways: the artifact, the notable work, and the significant use. Indiscriminate would be including every appearance whatsoever in any fictional work, however non-notable the work. But that is not the case here. There is no problem with WP:V, for the items are attributable--if it is challenged in good faith that the artifact is not in the work mentioned, that does have to be demonstrated. There is no problem with LIST, because more than the bare facts are given. Thus, this is not a dumping ground, and it is less likely to become one if it is kept as a separate article. DGG ( talk ) 15:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think one of the major issues here is that there's really no discussion or coverage in sources of the concept of the "Battle of Khe Sanh in popular culture". Without that, this really is nothing but a dumping ground for individual times it was mentioned in a TV show or song or whatever. Look at what's actually in the article: a mention in a video game? In a line of a song? In the Big Lebowski? A reference in a book simply comparing it another battle? These are mentions of trivia that could very well be trimmed out of an "in popular culture" section of a good article, let alone deserve their own. It hasn't been proven that this can be anything but a dumping ground; for that we'd need actual sources covering the concept of the battle in popular culture, not just a bunch of individual mentions and trivia.--Yaksar (let's chat) 15:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article is infinitely better (and smaller) than it was when I !voted to Merge, above, although still not sure if it would require a separate article. I will leave that to the closing admin. Dennis Brown (talk) 15:52, 18 April 2011 (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.