Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hoang Dieu Linh


 * 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  d elete. - Mailer Diablo 06:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Hoang Dieu Linh
No sources in this year-old article, which has a whiff of a hoax to it. Large portions are gibberish. Andrew Levine 02:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete junk JuJube 02:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Instead of nominating it for deletion, look for sources first and if YOU can't find any, then we can discuss this, but editors should try to improve articles before quitting on them. --172.129.74.92 02:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Above anonymous user has voted "Speedy Keep" in a slew of AfD. His votes should be ignored as bad faith and disruption. JuJube 02:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. If a nominator looked for sources and found none prior to nominating it for deletion, what indication would there be that s/he looked for them?  More to the point, what indication is there in this case that the nominator did not look for them?  Please try to keep things civil.  ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 04:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The nom. could have said what he had searched and failed to find--it does strengthen an argument.
 * But also, the anon above who is asking other people to look for sources--perhaps he should try himself and report on what he has found or failed to find. SODOIT.DGG 03:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete Per nomination. Jmlk17 06:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol delete vote.svg|20px]] Delete per nom Will (is it can be time for messages now plz?) 12:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, totally unsourced, looks like something made up in school one day. NawlinWiki 14:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete reads like nonsense, reeks of hoax: No News Archive or Books hits, no Google hits at all besides the article itself. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  17:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Unsourced, no attribution, not notable etc. etc. etc. As to the IP SPEEDY KEEPER, the primary responsibility for sourcing is with the originator.  Jody B   20:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete It aint there. On uncyclopedia, Hoang Dieu Linh just goes to a empty edit page. --Infrangible 01:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete. CSD G1.  Patent nonsense includes "Content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no intelligent person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever." Serpent&#39;s Choice 02:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Like serpent's choice said, patent nonsense. Not to mention only 217 ghits, the majority of which are either the same as this page or refer to a real person. --Entoaggie09 04:29, 5 May 2007 (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.