Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Kompong Speu

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. Weak arguments all around, but 4meter4 sums it up nicely. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:40, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Kompong Speu

[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)

Having just extensively expanded Cambodian Campaign there is just very little information available about this minor battle and certainly not enough to justify it having its own page Mztourist (talk) 09:29, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 09:30, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 09:31, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:42, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:29, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 00:15, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:MILNG. --BonkHindrance (talk) 00:52, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- BonkHindrance There are no RS on this battle that meet GNG Mztourist (talk) 03:27, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sounds like a very minor engagement in a very long war. Will trust Mztourist on lack of sourcing. Funny, this was translated to 3 other Wikipedia languages. Renata (talk) 06:07, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep enough casualties involved. Deserves stand-alone article. NavjotSR (talk) 17:05, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- NavjotSR there are no RS for this battle, if I can find any more details I will create a new page, but I can't find anything at the moment and there is just no reason to keep a 2 sentence standalone page. Mztourist (talk) 03:00, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - See this source. Many articles on here are very small and there is no need for expansion unless the subject is a fork of another or really lacks any mention, but for battles such as this we are allowed to have separate articles. NavjotSR (talk) 04:33, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - That doesn't justify a standalone page but you are welcome to expand it as you think it should stay. Mztourist (talk) 05:38, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's nothing wrong with an article being a stub. A search on google books revealed several publications that cover the battle, including those already listed in the article. It meets WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 01:07, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Please look at what the books actually say, there's no detail there. Mztourist (talk) 03:06, 4 March 2020 (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.