Deletion of Assessment of the Battle of Long Tan

Comment: a separate assessment article seems a viable topic to me based on the amount of sources that exist per . By way of some background, coverage of this battle on Wikipedia has been complicated by the fact that this is the most publicised battle of Australia's involvement in Vietnam. Indeed, short of Gallipoli, I'd contend that it is probably the battle that receives the most coverage every Anzac Day. It is also complicated by the fact that many sources disagree on seemingly minor tactical aspects (in heavy detail), and the interest of several veterans of the battle/producers of movies who have also published their own versions or their own opinions (and who also seem to edit Wikipedia - see Talk:Battle of Long Tan and its archives). Regarding comparisons with larger battles, agreed to an extent, but...in military history, it is sometimes about economies of scale. As a small middle power,  for a variety of reasons Australians have been prolific authors within the military history sphere, but often with a focus on the tactical, rather than the strategic. This is the "muddy boots" approach to military history; the weight of sources do indeed go to these depths. While I agree that the main article needs paring back (and indeed, I believe AC thought that too before he retired), it will be very difficult to do this without privileging one account over others. In this regard, this seems (to me, at least) an argument in favour of Wikipedia:Splitting so long as  or  are not breached. The content of this article (the assessment article) is supported by |reliable sources, although it might need reworking to attribute the source of the assessments in text (e.g. "according to X..." etc). That said, I caveat all of this by clarifying that the complicating factors that I raise above were a key part in driving a very prolific contributor from the project, and I, too, have no desire to get further involved in the topic. Make of that what you will. Regards
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV||WP:UNDUE||WP:FRINGE||WP:RS)

Comment: I accept {{u|Mztourist}}'s point that Long Tan has had far too much written about it, but in Wikipedia terms that amounts to .  Yes, it could be in the main article, but moving material into a subarticle is valid under 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV||WP:SPINOFF)

Comment: I am sure that there must be a policy or essay somewhere that discusses excessive coverage of events and topics. The Battle of Long Tan was a minor skirmish that lasted less than 4 hours and yet the main page is longer than probably every other battle and campaign of the Vietnam War, including those far more important by any objective criteria, other than the subjective criteria of its coverage in Australia. In addition to that overlong main page there are the 2 forks of Assessment and Order of Battle, which to my knowledge no other Vietnam War battles or campaigns have. I appreciate that the battle is significant in Australia, has produced multiple  in Australia and attracted the interest of multiple Users in Australia, but there must be some balance and perspective to the amount of coverage it warrants on WP. I believe that the sheer volume makes it  relative to the rest of the war. As you may recall back in March/April 2018 I attempted to reduce the size of the main page, reducing it by 20KB to 138KB, but since then another 10KB has been added, so I'm not sure that any paring back will be effective. We can however try and remove unnecessary duplicative forks, such as this one, which is really a blog argument with references. regards
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:UNDUE)