Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
< 2011 September 24
2011 September 26 >

25 September 2011

Jarrett Lee (closed)

Nguyễn Xuân Minh (wikipedian)

Nguyễn Xuân Minh (wikipedian) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This is an article that have references and formatted correctly as all the other articles, got deleted by an admin who refused to further discussion and didn't give me more reasons than just not notable enough. I have provided reasons in article talk page but it got deleted by another admin luckily i have saved it in my computer. For more reasons, you can read here, this where i went to before i know about this page.Trongphu (talk) 02:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Please give me more reasons why this person does not meet the important or significant to have an article on encyclopedia. He is a co-founder of the Vietnamese Wikipedia, which obviously proven by my sources. He was also mentioned by some Vietnamese news. I have included all the "references" of any information in the article. You guys have no idea how importance Wikipedia to Vietnamese people. It is almost like the only source that people can go look for stuffs unlike America as an example there are tons of other sources, websites that people can go on and look for things so Wikipedia doesn't seem like that big of the deal but in Vietnam Wikipedia is the "only" one. it ranked 20 in a nation, 20 may not seem that big but consider it's not an entertainment site it's a big deal. Vietnam is a poor country so therefore people don't really care much about education since they have more things to worry about like food, how to survive but i can tell that Wikipedia did something that most other "education project" can't do, it is a breakthrough. It made to top 20 most visited site in Vietnam is something that no other education related site can ever get. The founder of Vietnamese Wikipedia therefore must be notable enough. I'm strongly suggest whoever deleted this should undone the action. Try to prove to me why this person isn't notable enough??? And according to me, this person is "a lot" more notable than "a lot" of amateur players in variety of sports, writers and many more... Which already have articles in here. If this person should really deserves a speedy deletion then so do thousands thousands of articles should deserves the same.Trongphu (talk) 02:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]

My last point is if this article should be delete so does Jimmy Wales article since Jimmy and this person are both notable for founding Wikipedia. Do you guys really think the founder of English Wikipedia is way more significant than founder of Vietnamese Wikipedia? I'm sure that in Vietnam this person play a more significant role than Jimmy Wales(i agreed the founder of English Wikipedia is more important but the founder of Vietnamese Wikipedia should be somewhat notable for an article here) And don't forget to include the factor that Wikipedia means a lot to Vietnamese people than English speakers people.Trongphu (talk) 02:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

discussion between me and that admin just started, you can see if interested.Trongphu (talk) 02:20, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For those people who think that i'm Nguyễn Xuân Minh then i can tell you that you are so wrong. You think he (Minh) is such of a person, who really thirsty for fame, and trying to disguise as someone else to defend for the article about himself and afraid that if he defends it himself he will get a bad reputation? If you think like that then you probably understand things as it is flip up side down. I already said it but i have to say it again. I'm not him, i'm not even his friend or something. I just know him as an admin, founder, one of the head of our system. We were just co-workers as i would call it, we and many others are trying build and developed the great encyclopedia in Vietnamese version. This is him and this is me as in Vietnamese Wikipedia, through many years of working, i'm sure i can prove with anyone that he and i are not the same person. (the whole Vietnamese community is a proof, i think i made my point) Anyway some may wonder why am i trying so hard to fight for this? I have no problem with article deletion that deserve one but this one is obvious not i have a right to strongly believe in my belief. I think you guys would react the same way if Jimmy Wales article got a speedy deletion. I respect him (Minh) through his characteristic, work... I just want to give people what they deserve, that's why i'm fighting hard and will continue to fight hard to the end.Trongphu (talk) 01:11, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I explained the everything in detail why he is notable enough? Read the whole thing before you vote please. It's not like i made things up and say oh yea he is notable.Trongphu (talk) 20:31, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Did i say directly he is like Jimbo? Don't make up words that i didn't say please. As what i said up there i do admit Jimmy Wales is more significant in Wikipedia in general but in Vietnamese Wikipedia only, this person plays a more significant role. I did have references and my exclaiming that he is notable is not base on vain. Please consider careful before you vote.Trongphu (talk) 20:31, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In fact i found 2 more information that mention him are the same but from different sources [2] [3]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trongphu (talk • contribs) 20:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was there at the debate when they one admin decide to delete the version in Vietnamese language. His reason is simply he is not notable enough just like the admin above. The voting was taken place, more people vote for the deletion but don't misjudge the result by this. I think for many of the people that vote delete, they were just simply jealous of him because he has an article on Wikipedia and they don't. They want to be famous too but they can't so they just try to let no one get the place. And the admin, that was a main subject for the article, was too modest to vote keep his own article about him. The admin that want to delete the article end the voting very early compare to most of other voting. So some people didn't have chance to express their opinion. The voting only reflect the opinion of the few overall compare to the entire community. The voting was taken place when there aren't that many active members around. I was planning to bring it up in the community again when they are "enough" amount of members around and take a fair vote. I can tell you guys that it wasn't a fair voting at all base on every factors. After all, the reason it got deleted in other version doesn't change the fact that he is notable. Just forget the fact that this article got deleted in another version other than English and discuss about whether or not he is notable. For those people who support delete, give me more reasons than just like he is a Wikipedia so therefore he is not notable.Trongphu (talk) 20:51, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From my point of view, if the voting took place within the attention of the entire Vietnamese Wikipedia community then "keep" would be the majority. Unfortunately, it took place when many of the jealous people around. As far as i know justice will be found eventually. You can delete it for now but if it should really be keep then eventually it will be.Trongphu (talk) 20:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first reference is hard to judge. VietBao appears to be an online newspaper. The content is fairly long and entirely about Minh, though, and certainly reads as though it's relatively reliable (via machine translation). The second reference is from VnExpress, which is a newspaper, and unless anyone knows otherwise I presume it's reliable. It's also entirely about Minh (again, read via machine translation). There's a good bit of fluff in both of them, but not to the point that they're unusable. Personally, I'd go so far as to say that these two make a good case, by themselves, of Minh meeting the WP:GNG. Cheers. lifebaka++ 08:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The two sources listed were reprints of articles from Tuổi Trẻ, Vietnam's largest daily, but the articles primarily paraphrase my user page (as it was) at the Vietnamese Wikipedia. There have been some interviews with me besides, but they were focused on Wikipedia, not me. Otherwise, I guess I shouldn't speak for or against my notability due to conflict of interest. :^) – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 06:51, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That would tend to complicate things, but still wouldn't make the page a good A7 candidate. On a separate note, Minh, we'd love to hear your opinions on the article, whether or not it belongs here, etc. We might take them with a grain of salt, due to your conflict of interest, but we try to respect the subject's wishes when it comes to WP:BLPs. Cheers. lifebaka++ 17:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is a good idea for him to involve in this discussion at all. First it would give people reasons to say he is thirsty for fame. Plus he is too modest for it anyway, he doesn't really care if there is article about him or not but i do care though. Either way, this is a hard situation for him. If i was him, i would just wait and see and not to involve in. As the matter of fact, i don't think it's that big of the deal, we can work this out without the article's main subject.Trongphu (talk) 20:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn and list an article which has a reasonable claim to meeting the GNG isn't a speedy A7 case. And an article solely about the subject is certainly an assertion that someone finds him notable/important. Hobit (talk) 11:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and send to AFD. Founding the Vietnamese wikipedia looks to be enough of a claim of significance to survive A7, and the contested AFD there indicates this is not a straightforward, uncontroversial matter. This is more of a "not notable enough" than a "not significant enough" case, and such a case should be resolved by AFD. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and preferably list at AfD. Co-founding a popular website in Vietnam does seem to be an indication of the significance of the subject. Hopefully at AfD we can get some more detailed examination of the sources, but this page probably deserves to be at least redirected to Vietnamese Wikipedia. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list at AFD A7 doesn't apply here because there was a clear claim of importance made in the deleted article. Whethere such a claim of importance amounts to being actually notable is a matter for discussion, which is what AFD is for. --Jayron32 20:25, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and AfD list. The article did have a claim to importance although I was not sure that I found it credible. The credibility concern was very much a matter of my opinion, depending on the reliability of the sources. AfD, not speedy, is appropriate in such cases. I see responsible opinions here that the article's deletion should be discussed and so the speedy should be overturned, regardless of my (or any deleting admin's) personal view of the article. Thincat (talk) 08:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn A7, because A7 did not apply. No objection to listing at AfD. I'm starting to get a bit concerned at the number of speedies we're seeing at DRV that are very obviously bad. Administrators are reminded that outside very narrow speedy deletion criteria, and outside the possibility of an expired prod, it is the community that makes deletion decisions. Individual administrators are not given that authority.—S Marshall T/C 11:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't seem that bad an A7, and I don't think it has much chance at AfD, but seeing as someone asks, undelete and list at AfD as a contested speedy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Bad application of CSD A7, all that is required for an article to not be eligible under A7 is that the article make a claim of importance, founding a wikipedia is enough for that. The proper place to discuss whether that is enough to justify an article is at the AfD discussion that will occur if this is undeleted. Monty845 19:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleted- yes, it was probably a poor candidate for CSD A7. But the general sentiment seems to be that the article would not survive an AfD. Reyk YO! 04:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whether article will survive in AfD or not has noting to do with this. Stop making excuse outside of the topic to keep delete. I'm fine if it is deleted by majority of the community but not speedy deletion. But well i doubt it will be delete in AfD since the notability is pretty much undeniable, it's just some people just too stubborn to admit that they have made a mistake.Trongphu (talk) 20:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Who said it's going to be delete? Don't assume things that you don't know for sure. You are not a prophecy, are you?Trongphu (talk) 01:38, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When a sysop is going to close this??????? The result is pretty obvious now, stop making me waiting. Let start the AfD debate now!Trongphu (talk) 21:06, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus phone (closed)

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_September_25&oldid=453427166

Leave a Reply