Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Dien Bien Phu on Sea

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. ✗plicit 23:39, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Dien Bien Phu on Sea

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Pure speculation (WP:CRYSTAL) that has only been raised by few individuals. The long quotes in the article seem to be about the extent of the use. Vietnamese Wikipedia has an article created by the same user; a search of the title there ("Trận Điện Biên Phủ trên biển") reveals little more than what the article gives. — Goszei (talk) 22:54, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — Goszei (talk) 22:54, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. — Goszei (talk) 22:54, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. — Goszei (talk) 22:54, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete complete rubbish WP:CRYSTAL unsupported by RS. Mztourist (talk) 06:41, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We do have some articles about hypothetical conflicts (e.g. World War III), but the coverage here is not sufficient to demonstrate notability. The only sources cited in the article seem to be two primary sources that only mention the topic briefly. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 09:40, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CRYSTAL unsupported by RS as per Mztourist. Frigidpolarbear (talk) 14:40, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Neologism. It's not good enough to demonstrate use of a neologism; To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources say about the term or concept, not just sources that use the term Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:18, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't think CRYSTAL is exactly the right thing to cite here. Strategic military hypotheticals that are given enough scholarly attention and pass GNG warrant an article. Most of these involve actual planning and preparations that simply never came to fruition eg Operation Unthinkable. This does not meet GNG. -Indy beetle (talk) 10:57, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment is there an appropriate article about Vietnamese-Chinese relations and/or preparations through war games that this topic could briefly be mentioned and merged into? CaffeinAddict (talk) 00:20, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the sourcing, I don't really think this topic is worth mentioning in any Wikipedia article. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 16:17, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is lacking citations from multiple reliable sources. Star7924 (talk) 15:17, 28 April 2021 (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.