Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Truong


 * 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   no consensus. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 14:48, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Andy Truong

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Autobiography, dubious notability, even more dubious references. I've removed a spam link to his e-company  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  13:35, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Most of them are Self-publishing sources. Notability not found A.Minkowiski (talk) 17:42, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 18:39, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 18:39, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:36, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * comment the only reliable source provided is this one. LibStar (talk) 03:04, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep/Comment - Well, he's not going to stay Australia's youngest fashion designer forever. Let's see. Actually, this is one case where his press agent should be commended - there are plenty of scanned articles and cuttings on his press page, such as, after some scrolling) a scan of an article in Virgin Australia flight magazine for April 2013; Another article from The Weekly Review, 3 September 2012; Article from Fjorde magazine, winter 2013; Piece from Fashion Journal magazine; The Progress, Kew (13 August 2013). I think that's pretty sufficient evidence for ongoing coverage over the last couple of years in a variety of sources, even though I'm sure these sources mostly exist due to good PR - but it's still ongoing coverage over a period of time. Mabalu (talk) 11:31, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 06:04, 14 April 2014 (UTC)




 * Delete Not much notability, no real heavy impacts on the fashion industry in any way. Staglit (talk) 00:04, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * weak keep whilst there are sources, most of these are fashion related sources, but there is some coverage. LibStar (talk) 02:26, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete No significant notability, even as a student designer, which seems to be his present status. The existence of sources obvious based primarily or entirely upon press releases is not a justification for notability. Sources must be independent, and anything based on a press release is esactly the opposite.  DGG ( talk ) 06:13, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Response DGG, what is "obvious" about the sources all being based on press releases? When I said they existed due to good PR, I meant that they were probably written due to a PR agent persuading these publications to cover his work, or asking reporters to cover it. I did consider them carefully and sceptically, and ignored a LOT of the obvious press-release stuff in between the other articles, and it does seem that ongoing coverage is there, in a wide variety of sources (albeit mostly Australian media). Several of the articles I linked to above are attributed clearly to third party authors/journalists (Rachel Farah, Lauren Darragh, Melanie Gardiner, etc...) and from what I can see they do not parrot/rehash each other's text, but actually offer different copies/texts. I was prepared to believe this should be deleted, and indeed, when I started my comment, was thinking I would be saying "delete", but changed my mind after looking at the sources. Yes, it's not the strongest stuff, but it was enough for me to see a case for keeping.  Mabalu (talk) 09:30, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 06:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


 * 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.