Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Huy Duc


 * 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07  ( T ) 00:53, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Huy Duc

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is kind of unusual - a procedural AfD where I am suggesting we should keep the article! I am submitting it on behalf of the original author, User:Eastgarden, who has been trying desperately to delete the article. First they added PROD tags three times, which I declined because I believe the subject is notable. Then they tried WP:G7 twice, which didn't work because they are not the only author. Their stated rationale is "as creator, I've changed my mind"; they also said something about incorrect facts, but they have not specified what facts they believe are incorrect. My involvement: Back in April 2015 when the article was new I declined CSD A7, because I felt the person was notable. I expanded the article sevenfold, added references, and took it to DYK. All was quiet for the next year, until this week, when Eastgarden started trying to delete it. I have put notes on their talk page, explaining that it is not up to them and they don't WP:OWN the article, and trying to understand where they are coming from. No response. It appears they don't understand the system. When they persisted I decided to take it to AfD on their behalf, to get a community decision. At this point I think we need an impartial community evaluation and a definitive decision to either keep or delete. MelanieN (talk) 06:15, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GSS  (talk) 11:42, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. GSS  (talk) 11:42, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:27, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:28, 1 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The author posted the following on the talk page of this discussion; I am copying it here so it can be part of the discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 18:43, 1 July 2016 (UTC) They said:"Regret so very much after created this page I've regretted so very much after created this page: the subject is a pre-communist, the red-mafia like; not enough words to decriber him and, if MelanieN want to keep him, just simply create him by your own, so easy! Eastgarden (talk) 09:46, 1 July 2016 (UTC)"
 * Keep the subject is clearly notable as he is covered in significant depth by reliable sources including. The Wall Street Journal, New York Times and Harvard so WP:BASIC is passed Atlantic306 (talk) 01:10, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Nom. Sources are solid.  But Note how flawed (easily gamed) our deletion process is.  A very similar article was recently deleted [].  It was similar in being sourced to major media,  but deleted because a handful of editors appeared to find it politically uncongenial.  So few eyes come to some AFDS, that it can become a popularity contest, especially in politically sensitive cases.  End of screed.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:06, 6 July 2016 (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.