Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Ben Het

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. Stifle (talk) 15:29, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Ben Het

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

Battle of Ben Het (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)

Unnecessary fork from Ben Het Camp, which provides some expanded detail of the 3 March 1969 attack, but not enough to warrant its own page. There were multiple "battles" at Ben Het: the 3 March 1969 attack, the May-June 1969 siege, the April-May 1972 siege and the 12-13 October 1972 conquest of the base, all of which are detailed on the Ben Het Camp page. Any relevant detail should be merged into that page. Mztourist (talk) 06:47, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The infobox of the Ben Het Camp article featured a WP:RED to the previously nonexistent Battle of Ben Het article under Battles/wars, suggesting an article for the battle was desired. The battle is also detailed on the PT-76 article, which would lead one to believe it should have it's own article so as not to be exclusively spread across multiple articles. The notion that an article for the battle shouldn't exist due to an article for the camp existing that mentions the battle is a bit baffling, given there are numerous articles on battles for forts, castles and bases that exist in conjunction with the articles for the forts, castles and bases they took place within. For example, Viet Cong attack on Tan Son Nhut Air Base (1966) is allowed to exist alongside Tan Son Nhut Air Base, with the 1966 attack not being excluded to detail in the latter article.
In regards to there being multiple "battles" for Ben Het, generally when searching for the 'Battle of Ben Het' or reading mention of the 'Battle of Ben Het,' the tank battle of 3 March 1969 is the engagement you'll find. The 3 March 1969 attack is also the only engagement truly titled a "battle" that you mentioned, and if the siege and conquest were to warrant their own articles then they could be titled the 'Siege of Ben Het' and/or the 'Fall of Ben Het,' as many other articles do to differentiate between battles and sieges taking place in the same area.
To merge the article with the Ben Het Camp article would be contradictory to the precedence taken on a vast majority of other articles regarding battles for forts, castles and bases, and thus I suggest to keep it. UncleBourbon (talk) 07:22, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • A redlink just means that someone put square brackets around a term, thinking a page exists, it doesn't "suggest an article for the battle was desired". Your comparison to Viet Cong attack on Tan Son Nhut Air Base (1966) is incorrect, Tan Son Nhut Air Base was already a massive page, adding a large amount of specific detail relating to the 1966 attack would have just bloated the Tan Son Nhut Air Base page. There is no issue with having details of the engagement on both the PT-76 page and on Ben Het Camp, the issue is that you have created a fork with only a few more specifics than what was already on Ben Het camp. Mztourist (talk) 03:05, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If someone thought a page existed, and if the battle is significant enough to exist as a subsection of an article for a tank model that fought in it, then it is WP:N enough to warrant it's own article. For another more accurate comparison, you have Duc Lap Camp and the Battle of Duc Lap, as the Duc Lap Camp article is even smaller than the Ben Het Camp article, and again the Battle of Duc Lap article is allowed to exist alongside it. I could go on with other examples if you would like, since the problem you take with this article's existence truly goes against the precedent. "Only a few more specifics" is entirely your opinion; the Battle of Ben Het article mentions the forces stationed at Ben Het at the time of the battle, the activity observed prior to the battle, the names of participants and commanders within the battle, the order in which targets were sighted and positions they were taken out, the pursuit by the AC-47 'Spooky,' as well as various other details left out of the Ben Het Camp article.UncleBourbon (talk) 03:32, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The difference is the order of creation. I created Duc Lap Camp several years after another User created Battle of Duc Lap, because Battle of Duc Lap didn't have detail of the camp itself including its history before and after that battle. A better comparison would be Camp Carroll created in July 2006 and then the creation last November of Surrender of Camp Carroll which was soon merged back into Camp Carroll and First Battle of Quang Tri. Ben Het Camp already states the forces stationed there, the names of the participants and commanders is trivia unless any of them received a significant medal, the order of engagement is stated on Ben Het Camp and the use of an AC-47 can just be added to Ben Het Camp. Mztourist (talk) 03:58, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fail to see the significance in the order of creation if we're discussing whether the articles can exist simultaneously. The point stands that if the Battle of Duc Lap can exist separately from Duc Lap Camp to provide greater detail on the battle, then the same is applicable for the Battle of Ben Het. You also haven't put the Battle of Duc Lap article up for deletion since it's details could all be moved to your Duc Lap Camp article, which is essentially what you're doing here. Information and significance are what matter, not date of creation. The fact it is the only true tank battle involving the United States in the Vietnam War, that there are two different articles already referencing it as the 'Battle of Ben Het,' and that it is well documented and of significance, makes it noteworthy enough to warrant it's own article for greater detail. Again, it is only your opinion that a paragraph on the Ben Het Camp article has sufficient detail, and that details such as participants and commanders are 'trivia.' The infobox alone for the Battle of Ben Het article has more details regarding the battle than the paragraph of the camp article, which is fine as it is an article for the camp, and not an article for the battle. It frankly makes no sense to turn a perfectly suitable full article of a battle into a drawn out section of your article on the camp it took place in just because you want the information there.UncleBourbon (talk) 04:44, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I completely disagree with you. Battle of Ben Het contains only additional trivia beyond what is contained on the Ben Het Camp page. There's clearly no point in us continuing this discussion as we won't reach agreement, so we will see how this AFD plays out. Mztourist (talk) 05:07, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep - Although relatively minor, notable as the only tank v tank engagement of the Vietnam war. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:04, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only tank v tank engagement, involving the US. The North and South Vietnamese had plenty of such engagements. Mztourist (talk) 06:05, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, yes, let me rephrase that, it's the only tank engagement involving US tanks in the Vietnam war. However as such, this makes it definitley notable. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:36, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:NOPAGE, I think this should be merged as proposed by the nominator. Both articles are quite short, so no information will be lost, but this engagement will presented in the context of other related events. (t · c) buidhe 07:28, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with the article on Ben Het Camp proper. The majority of the border zone camps were subject to periodic attacks of varying severity so long as they existed (some even being under what might be considered a permanent state of siege). Merging this with the camp gives context to the engagement while still preserving its unique elements. Intothatdarkness 03:13, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:34, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep but also rename to include the date for clarity - the tank battle at Ben Het on 3-4 March 1969 is notable as the only US tank versus NVA tank battle of the Vietnam War and has received a lot of coverage because of that. See e.g., 1 2 3. The sources clearly distinguish this battle from the other battles that took part at the camp, and from the history of the camp in general. The nature of the Vietnam war meant that certain places were fought over all the time, but this being the case does not mean that there weren't much larger battles that were distinct from the continual drum-beat of combat around US/ARVN bases. "Ben Het Camp" is not a natural redirect for this subject and will surprise people searching for this specific battle, it is also not what we have done with Battle of Khe Sanh or the DMZ Campaign (1969–71) despite the existence of Khe Sanh Combat Base and Vietnamese Demilitarized Zone so consistency points towards not merging to the place where the combat took place. FOARP (talk) 10:51, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ben Het Camp is a perfectly natural redirect and it would not "surprise people searching for this specific battle". The comparisons to Battle of Khe Sanh and DMZ Campaign (1969–71) are spurious as both were long battles/campaigns whereas Ben Het 1969 was just an overnight attack and trying to put either of those into Vietnamese Demilitarized Zone would completely overburden that page. Putting Battle of Khe Sanh (created in 2003) into Khe Sanh Combat Base (created as a redirect in 2007 and as a standalone page in 2012) would similarly overburden that page. Khe Sanh is probably the best known battle of the war, unlike the Ben Het attack which is relatively unknown (it has not "received a lot of coverage") and was just one of a series of attacks aimed at the camp. Mztourist (talk) 03:18, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much every book that discusses armoured warfare in general during the 20th century mentions the tank-battle at Ben Het. It being brief or long doesn't particularly matter. It being part of a series of attacks also doesn't particularly matter as the sources treat it differently. FOARP (talk) 09:06, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The existence of "pretty much every book that discusses armored warfare" (none of which are on the page as refs) doesn't determine whether this should be a standalone page or a redirect. Mztourist (talk) 09:38, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NEXIST, see the links above. FOARP (talk) 09:41, 28 January 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Battle_of_Ben_Het&oldid=1069487890"