Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Signal Hill Vietnam

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 Company E, 52nd Infantry (LRP) (United States). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Signal Hill Vietnam[edit]

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

This is a borderline speedy case, and the only reason I'm not calling for speedy deletion as a copy of this magazine article is because the article has been edited forward enough that I'm not utterly confident that it's close enough to the original blatant copy as to allow that route to be pursued. I still suspect it's so close that it would be necessary to start over from scratch in writing it. An equally serious problem, however, is that there's no evidence that this action was ever called "Battle of Signal Hill". Ankony (the author of the magazine article) is the only person making an association of "Signal Hill" with Dong Tri mountain, and even he doesn't formally dub the action with this title. The action in question certainly happened, and is related in a variety of other works, so there's certainly a place for it somewhere— but not under this title, and not with this text. Mangoe (talk) 16:33, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

further comment Talk page discussion includes a claim that Ankony himself is the author of the first version, and that he releases that version to us. That may or may not resolve our copyright issue, but the naming problem remains. I'm also concerned about how we deal with publishing what is likely primary research. Mangoe (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
comment I've done some cleanup work on this, and did find errors in some of the non-Ankony sources he used (one was an actual misquote of a cited source). I also adjusted much of the prose in some sections to make it less of a direct copy (which I think it was after reviewing his link to the original article). This is a common issue with this editor's work, and I've asked him on his talk page to make wider use of reliable secondary sources. Intothat darkness 17:01, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect. I've been considering a COIN visit for a while now. This editor has used his own work as the basis for a lot of additions to Wikipedia, over several articles, almost to the point of where it appears to be an attempt to sell the book. I think there are significant COI issues that need addressed outside of this AfD. As for this article, I'm leaning towards merge and redirect with Company E, 52nd Infantry (LRP) (United States). Niteshift36 (talk) 19:55, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge to Company E, 52nd Infantry (LRP) (United States). I doubt it merits an article of its own, but it's much too long and detailed to put it all in. Ansh6 6 6 01:14, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect. I raised a COI question on MilHist about this editor. Unlike the others, I'd suggest this article be merged with Operation Delaware, as that's the main combat operation that Signal Hill supported. Some material could go to the E/52 article, but for context it really belongs with the operation. Intothat darkness 13:59, 14 August 2013 (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.