Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jayden Thai


 * 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 Delete. Michig (talk) 07:49, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Jayden Thai

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Alleged to be A7 eligible, however the person in question is published and there are sources for the material given, which justifies eligibility for inclusion here - albeit barely - so I'm putting this here to let the community weigh in on the matter. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:28, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk to me  04:13, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk to me  04:13, 20 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - May be notable sometime soon, but all of the sources appear to be primary and I'm not able to find any others sufficient to pass WP:BIO. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 05:25, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 05:30, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 05:31, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 05:32, 20 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete (and possibly speedily) - when the nom states "alleged to be A7 eligible" I take it they mean Eligible for speedy deletion under A7. If so then yes (unfortunately the publications and memberships are not enough for WP currently because the attention in 3rd party reliable, independent, sources is not there). No indication of why this person is notable has been asserted. This bio fails WP:BIO, WP:BASIC, and WP:GNG. However, as Rhododendrites it's possible (or even likely) that this person will be notable in the future but wikipedia is not a crystal ball and until they're notable the page has to be deleted-- Cailil  talk 16:55, 20 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. No credible assertion of notability and no references. This is basically a recitation of the thus-far career of a graduate student created by a SPA. Agricola44 (talk) 20:26, 20 November 2014 (UTC).
 * Delete. He clearly does not (yet) pass WP:PROF, so any notability would have to rest on WP:GNG for his activism. But we need multiple reliable in-depth sources that are independent of the subject and about him, and currently we have none. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:57, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete there are no indications that this person is notable, and the article fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 00:35, 22 November 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.