Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johnny "JohnnyD" Nguyen


 * 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. W.marsh 04:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Johnny "JohnnyD" Nguyen

 * - (View AfD) (View log)

Apparently non-notable, only sources are his own corporate websites, YouTube or myspace, and half of the links are dead. No google hits for "Johnny 'johnnyD' Nguyen" and googling for simply "Johnny Nguyen" leads to many people and myspace profiles. Also a probably COI with rather spammy language. Wintermut3 07:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Additional information: IMDB filmography states no roles in several of the notable movies listed, including The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift. Wintermut3 07:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

You obviously have something against the guy just because he has accomplished so much more than you in your pitiful lifespan. All of the sources can be verified. Look at the Kelly Hu and Grace Park videos on the credits--they've just been uploaded. He is listed as producer in the end credits. Also, as for Fast and Furious 3, he is a tea hair in the movie. Look at the screenshot I posted. He's right there next to one of the leads. How dare you say otherwise. IMDB is going to update the page soon, because info was recently submitted for Johnny to be in the listing, credited or uncredited.

His OWN corporate websites? Are you smoking crack? There is only one corporate website we made and it's a myspace. All the others were created by third party people we're associated with... Parc Landon, Thirteen Minutes, Rival Entertainment...  contact them all. I dare you. By all means, I invite you to ask and verify Johnny's authenticity. Half the links are dead? Name which ones and I'll fix it. Oh, you can't? Probably because you're lying then. And ask all those people on myspace profiles if they know Johnny and they'll tell you he's a genuine guy that they love to work with.

Don't be jealous--you're just a hater. All his affiliations can be verified by simply calling the places and seeing if he works there. He works very hard for what he has attained, including teaching children sing in a choir, for church services every sunday. So know your info before you start speaking blasphemy. In fact, if you keep at it, I'll make sure of it that our lawyers hear of this slander and defamation of character. You've been warned, Wintermut3. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.136.82.207 (talk • contribs).


 *  Comment Delete: The above statement was left unsigned by 24.136.82.207. Be mindful of WP:LEGAL. I'll do some more research and vote later . WP:BIO Notability not established.--inksT 10:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete cuz I love the grape haterade. Seriously, the pathetic rebuttal above speaks for itself. JuJube 12:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and perhaps salt to prevent recreation? With that attitude it's to be expected. Notability not established. --Ouro 12:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as insufficiently sourced to satisfy WP:BIO.-- danntm T C 15:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails WP:BIO, editor fails WP:COI. User:24.136.82.207 has been warned on Talk page for the above screed. --Dhartung | Talk 20:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * '' Comment Autobiography and self-promotion are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. The published works must be someone else writing about the person. (See Wikipedia:Autobiography for the verifiability and neutrality problems that affect material where the subject of the article itself is the source of the material.) The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself have actually considered the subject notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it.

It is notable. He did not write this himself--it is not self promotion. I am writing about him, because his achievements are note-worthy. Jujube, you're just another hater. Pathetic rebuttal? DO YOUR RESEARCH. Make some calls around, instead of sitting at your computer all day, doing nothing but insulting other people. Make calls to Universal--ask if Johnny was in the cast of Fast and the Furious 3.

Ouro, insufficently sourced? I linked everything. Your claim is just a inefficiently backed up statement. It's fallacy at its best. Make a phone call or two and see if I'm lying. Call Rival Entertainment and ask if Johnny works there. Call Parc Landon. Call Thirteen Minutes magazine. If you people can't do that, how can you people call yourself researchers on Wikipedia? It's just disheartening when you the world is reduced to people who can't even do research outside of the "INTERNET" to finagle their sources. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.136.82.207 (talk • contribs).
 * 24.136.82.207 - Firstly, you should sign your comments by typing "~" (without the quotes) at the end. Second - you're only looking at one part of the policy - in full, the statement is that:


 * The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person.
 * This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, scholarly papers, and television documentaries except for the following:
 * Media reprints of the person's autobiography or self-promotional works.
 * Works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that just mention the person in passing, telephone directory listings, or simple records of births and deaths.
 * The dispute is not whether the subject of the article actually exists, or has actually held the positions and done the things claimed. Even if the article content is entirely true, the subject still appears to fail the main criterion of notability - namely multiple, non-trivial, independent published works. Most of the published works I found were of the "reprint" or "trivial coverage" variety (as noted in the above criteria). Are there newspaper articles (not promotional leaflets, but say an interview in USA Today or even a local daily newspaper) that you can link to? --inksT 21:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * To anon, you ain't nuthin' but a Wikihater. Quit your hatin'!  Why you stalk me?!  Don't hate the editor, hate the policy!  You down with N.O.R.?  Ackrite! JuJube 10:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 *  Weak Delete unless sources, as mentioned directly above, become available, in which case I'll re-evaluate. The filmography's got some pretty big movies, but the size of the role is the question there, I think. Also, if this does survive, it definitely needs to be beaten with an editing stick, as it's massively promotional right now. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Changed to full delete due to further comments. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comments to the above If sources can be found, I agree completely that this should be kept, but a cursory examination found literally nothing, no google hits for the exact title and many irrelevant ones for the simple name, in addition, I doubt some of those roles were his at all, they do not appear on the IMDB filmography.
 * To the first poster: Remember that importance and notability are not the same things.  People can be very important, to a few or to many people, without having notability or enough verifiable sources to be encyclopedic material.  If you can assert notability with reliable third-party sources providing a context and asserting how the subject is notable per the guidelines Wikipedia notability and Biographies then I will happily withdraw the nomination and help improve the article, but nothing I've seen to this point or been able to find on my own asserts that importance.  In order for information to be verifiable per the guideline WP:V the information must be accessible.  Having wikizens making phone calls would be Original research, we need sources we can all access. Also, and I hesitate to mention, but some of your statements could be construed as personal attacks or legal threats I welcome your input, and I don't want to see it discounted because of your choice of words. As to the dead links, all of the links from 13 Minutes under "producer credits" lead to "stream cannot be found." Wintermut3 22:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete The filmography has large movies - and no evidence he was in any of them. Checking the biggest three movies on the list, he does not show up in the IMDB listings for Dodgeball, the Hot Chick or Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift.  In fact, for someone apparently with so many appearances, he has no page at all on IMDB.  Google does not reveal any evidence that he was in these movies.  Frankly, I believe that entire section is a hoax designed to invent notability for an article that is designed to promote a nn individual.  This is spam masquerading as an article. Even if he was notable, this article would have to be blown up, disenfected, and rewritten from scratch. Resolute 04:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Likely a hoax as none of the references check out. Odd and personally aggressive rebuttals by author above also indicate it's probably a hoax. Dugwiki 20:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and liberally add Sodium chloride per WP:V/WP:HOAX/WP:SNOW. This Johnny Nguyen looks nothing like the one in the offending article, and there is an obvious mismatch of credits, dob, place of birth etc. No other person matching that description on IMDB. Vitriolic attack by author in an opening shot, and persistently thereafter in gross violation of WP:CIVIL and warrants an immediate ban, but for an unidentified IP. Ohconfucius 04:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Tony Fox, I've taken down his filmography section because that seemed to be of major dispute. But as you can see, he was in the Fast and the Furious 3. I even posted a screenshot from the film with him and the film's leading star. What else more do you want? But anyways, I took the filmography down so no more disputes can arise from all this.

Wintermut3, sorry about all the choice words--it's just that I spent a long time writing that article on Johnny and everything was true, so when you got on my case, I went off. As for the dead link, click on them again, and as you can see to the right, if you click Kelly Hu and Grace Park, that will lead to their interviews. As well, Johnny's name is listed in the end credits as PRODUCER.

Ohconfucious, that is a different Johnny Nguyen. He's primarily an actor that one of my friends has worked with. This is JohnnyD that we're referring to. 24.136.82.207 21:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * What would be most helpful would be a third-party source that meets the guidelines listed at Reliable sources. Otherwise, the article does not meet Wikipedia's verifiability requirement and will end up being deleted.  ShadowHalo 08:52, 27 January 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.