Minh Nguyen (Wikipedian) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I'm here again speaking on behalf of a person who tried many times to give people what they deserve. I have been blocked for disagree so i couldn't participate in the last 5 days of the discuss and as the result it has been delete by false claims. The debate at AfD can be seen here. Many people said it has 2 sources but it clearly has 5 sources. If not include one source from Wikipedia then it has 4 sources, 4 articles. Two of them talk only about him and the other two talk briefly about him but for all four he is a main subject of the articles. Some people said they vote delete because they want to honor him. I think it's more like of insulting him if you delete the article about him. Some people claimed like no one is going to read this or no further expansion is possible, Wikipedia is not a place for futuristic predictions. Plus the policy clearly says the result will not base on amount of votes. Then what is a reason to delete this? The Afd didn't reach any kind consensus. As many people admit he does barely touch the requirement for notable (for myself i think he is for sure met the notability) then if he did meet, barely still he met it, it then i don't see any reason why they vote delete. It's not a matter of how much famous is he but does he qualify for an article? Barely = yes to me. For some people they claimed he (the subject of the article) requested a deletion for his article. As far as my reading goes i never see a single word related to that matter. The closest statement he said about it is he disagrees about he is famous enough to qualify for an article, which proven his modest right here. Why don't you just give what people what they deserve despite their modest? However there are some valid reasons, some people simply don't see him notable enough, i disagree with them of course but well after everyone has a right to express opinion. We each have different perspective on the subject. Why are so sure that the delete decision is the best in this case? That's not neutral point of view. Since there is no real consensus the result should be no consensus, it clearly says as one of the Afd policy. The article should be kept for future discussion if needed. The AfD result is unfair as far as i can understand. The result is caused by false claims, futuristic predictions which can't be proven and misunderstanding. Hope the community thoroughly read and understand my thoughts and share my motivation to fight for what is right. Trongphu (talk) 00:05, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - Deletion review is not AfD round 2. Seven editors advised to keep the article, twenty-six said to delete or merge. That looks like pretty good consensus to me. Also keep in mind that the editor above was blocked for his disruptive behavior and personal attacks during this AfD. Trusilver 00:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is that consensus or counting on vote? The policy clearly said the result should not base on the number of votes. It is only good consensus if you can prove all 7 of us who agree to keep wrong. And i was blocked for saying the truth or insulting? And who provoked whom first? Let the community judge. It's not your turn to judge, you told me something similar once.Trongphu (talk) 00:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: "the community" you ask to judge is made up of individuals, including Truesilver. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: He had his turn before i think.Trongphu (talk) 23:34, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - When we come here we should mainly be looking at two things. First, did the closer accurately read the consensus of the debate. In this case I do believe that DGG accurately interpreted the consensus of the discussion. Next, is there new information available that would impact the outcome of the original AFD. In this case Trongphu has not presented any new information. He has only presented the same reasoning as presented at the AFD that did not sway opinions. GB fan 01:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - The page was deleted properly per consensus at the AfD, and per GB fan above, no new information has been identified that should lead to a restoration of the page. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse The close reflects the consensus and that's all that can be asked of a close. Whether the consensus was right is a void question. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:42, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 02:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse The consensus against a stand alone article was overwhelming. The !votes for redirect assumed that Minh would be named at the target, and the close appropriately deleted instead of redirecting consistent with Wikipedia:Redirect#What_needs_to_be_done_on_pages_that_are_targets_of_redirects.3F. If the subject is not notable enough for a mention at Vietnamese Wikipedia then he is certainly not notable enough for an article. I see no reason to blank any of these discussions unless the subject requests. Trongphu should move on to something else now. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:58, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I was the closing administrator. Wikipedia policy as given at WP:DELAFD is that a AfD that would otherwise close as non-consensus when the person is borderline notable can optionally close as delete, when the subject requests it. I 've said many times that this option should almost never be used; I may even have said it should never be used, in which case events have shown me otherwise. I consider this an appropriate case for that option. The notability is very borderline if at all, I interpreted the discussion as showing that the person quite reasonably considers himself non-notable; the insistence on an article for a fellow Wikipedian despite this seems incomprehensible to me, though I do not know what personalities may have been involved. The use of this provision is a matter for judgment. Judgement is always open for question about its reasonableness. Reconsidering it a day later, my own opinion is that I was reasonable, but that question is for others to decide. DGG ( talk ) 03:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The "votes" in this AfD were all over the map, but reading more carefully I see a consensus that we should not have an independent article on this person because he does not meet the notability requirements even if some minimal mention is reasonable in the Vietnamese Wikipedia article. Given that this is a BLP, DGG was quite right to carefully consider whether or not to delete in this circumstance when otherwise a redirect would be the normal compromise. In this case, his decision to give weight, small but ultimately dispositive, to the wishes of the subject is in accord with prior en-wiki consensus and does not result in a clearly perverse result, since deletion would have been a reasonable close regardless. Thus his well reasoned closure must be endorsed. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse — correct closure, nothing new. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse whether it should have been Delete or Delete and Redirect is the only issue, but since there was clearly no endorsement for a stand-alone article, there is nothing wrong with this close. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I agree there were lots of problems with the close. The massive number of WP:JNN !votes being the largest problem. And I do feel that DGG mis-characterized the subject's desire for deletion. Also, the subject's own opinion about his notability is irrelevant in any case. But the case for inclusion is weak (exactly two RSes by my count) and the !vote is strong enough in numbers (and the WP:BLP1E arguments which were fairly strong actually though I disagree with them). Deletion is clearly the consensus. A no-consensus close would have been a big stretch. Hobit (talk) 08:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Consensus was abundantly clear and claiming otherwise can only be seen as Refusal to get the point. Yoenit (talk) 11:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse – A clear consensus for deletion (or, if you were really conservative, redirection to say the least) was established. The deletion was also consciously made out of respect for the person associated with the article and given the questionable notability. The closing admin made the correct decision here. –MuZemike 16:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. DGG's analysis was quite sound. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:45, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, per everyone except the nominator. A rare October snowfall.—S Marshall T/C 18:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The subject met (but only just met) the notability guidelines. Opinions saying the guideline had not been met were mistaken. However, a guideline is a guideline and it is right to take into account reasoned arguments that one should not be followed in any particular case. Like Hobit, I do not think the subject was requesting deletion but just expressing the view that he is not notable. So, there is no strong case for retaining the article and the closer's explanation of his rationale has been helpful. Thincat (talk) 18:55, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse Consensus in the AfD seems clear. If I had seen the AfD I think I might not have gone the same way as most of the people there. But DRV is not AfD round 2. I can't call for overturning an AfD simply for not fully agreeing with the community consensus. Note that if further coverage of Minh Nguyen does occur it may make sense to revisit this at that time. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't know what are you guys thinking? You guys keep claiming that there are a consensus but wait a minute let carefully think about it. The merge, redirect, delete are totally three different groups, they all have different opinions on the article no matter if it's a bit different or could be a big different. You can't just add them up and say they are all agree with each other and get 26 votes. That's so not how to break it down. This is how it suppose to goes 7 keep, 14 delete, 9 redirect, 3 merge. Plus i think out of 14 delete there are some votes are from misunderstanding. Anyway even though delete get the biggest amount of votes but it doesn't reach more than half. I don't see how it can possible be a consensus there. For some redirect votes they clearly says redirect or merge or put all the relevant stuffs into Vietnamese Wikipedia. So basically the majority agreed that the article info should has its place in Vietnamese Wikipedia article and why i don't see it has been done so? Alright i'm guessing not many people think Vietnamese people are anything in the world so therefore i will be concession, i no longer think it's possible for that person to has its own article but at least fight for that person has its place in Vietnamese Wikipedia article and has the article redirect to the section in Vietnamese Wikipedia article.Trongphu (talk) 23:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And should we take the vote on whether or not article should be merge completely into Vietnamese Wikipedia article as a section? If so then i guess let start the vote at Talk:Vietnamese Wikipedia. Well i'm strongly think it at least deserve a spot in it plus that's pretty much the community majority said.Trongphu (talk) 00:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Disagree There was 14 recommendations for deletion, 9-10 for redirect, 7 for keep, 4 for merge. The majority rules. Just because you think that he is notable enough to qualify does not mean that the article shouldn't have been deleted. Drop_the_stick_and_back_slowly_away_from_the_horse_carcass. Dusty777 (talk) 00:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think your statement majority rules is not part of the policy. It is the consensus that we are looking for not the amount of votes. Let me clarify again the delete votes did not represent the majority since it's not half compare to the total votes. Anyway i stopped argue for that person has its place on an article what i'm asking now is merge all the relevant info into Wikipedia Vietnamese article.Trongphu (talk) 00:12, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]