Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Junie Hoang


 * 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. Per WP:BLP1E, this article should be repurposed as an article on the event and then moved to an appropriate title. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 10:56, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Junie Hoang

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is a violation of WP:BLP1E. Whilst it is clear that the subject has had some small bit parts in non-mainstream movies/TV shows, there is no coverage of these parts. The only sources I can find for her is to do with her Amazon lawsuit which is over the controversy to do with her age. This is clearly WP:BLP1E territory and as such the article should be deleted. Russavia (talk) 01:50, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 13 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Create article for the event, and redirect there While the subject is not notable for anything but the lawsuit, as I can find, there is no justification to keep the article. However, I do feel that the lawsuit itself is notable in the coverage that it has received ABC, Guardian, LA Times, Backstage, NY Post, Hollywood Reporter, and others.  Per WP:Event, WP:GNG, and WP:1E.  -Aaron Booth (talk) 02:24, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Create article for the event and redirect there. I was originally going to vote for a merge to IMDb, but upon seeing Aaron Booth's suggestion I have been swayed. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Her identity was the subject of several independent blind-item gossip rag mags, and she herself became notable through the events that transpired--not as an actress for her work--but as the hidden identity behind the suit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deedbunk (talk • contribs) 05:26, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete; honestly not convinced an article on the lawsuit would be suitable either, but it's a better approach than this classic one-event biography. Andrew Gray (talk) 07:18, 13 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Regarding one-event biography, I feel like this fits with "It is not the case that the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented – as in the case of John Hinckley, Jr., who shot President Ronald Reagan in 1981." This was a major battle for Amazon/IMDb, and the arguments/decision have dressed the 1st Am. in new clothes DeedBunk  —Preceding undated comment added 21:52, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. This suit isn't notable enough for its own page. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:40, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep or Move to Hoang v. Amazon.com. The case has gotten significant attention, not just as a matter of news, but as a point of notable discussion about privacy law and age discrimination.  See, for example,, , , , ; therefore, WP:NOTNEWS does not apply here.  Arguably, this is subject to WP:BLP1E, but that's not grounds for deleting the article; that's grounds for moving it to an article on the event. TJRC (talk) 21:56, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete on BLP1E grounds per nom and Andrew Gray. No objection to creating an article such as Hoang v. Amazon.com, if this is a notable subject. PhilKnight (talk) 22:02, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - Does not meet the standards of WP:NACTOR, and the lawsuit puts her squarely into WP:BLP1E territory as she is only in the news for that. Would not be opposed to a redirect to an article on the lawsuit if that itself is deemed notable. Tarc (talk) 16:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. She may fail WP:ACTOR, but the lawsuit makes her famous. I don't see a BLP issue, this is just another case of Streisand effect. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 01:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you not see a WP:ONEEVENT issue? If the woman is only known for one thing, filling a frivolous lawsuit, then that isn't enough to justify an article.  The lawsuit itself is perhaps notable, but we shouldn't have a biography of a person just for something like this. Tarc (talk) 18:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep The very fact that people want to suppress the easy access of information on her tells me we should make it available.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * What an utterly asinine reason to keep an article, your rationale rests entirely on being spiteful towards this individual. Tarc (talk) 18:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm persuaded that WP:BLP1E/WP:BIO1E apply here, and there should not be an article on Hoang herself. Apart from the notable lawsuit, she's a third-tier actor, and would not merit an article but for the lawsuit.  The guidance in the WP:BLP1E policy and WP:BIO1E guideline anticipate that there is already a separate article on the event into which the content should be merged, but that's not the case here.  A few editors have suggested creating an article and redirecting; or deleting without prejudice to recreating.  Some have suggested just deleting based on the policy or guideline without considering the notability of the event.  Because an article on the event will consist of substantially the same material as the "Lawsuit against IMDb" section, we should not delete this article and re-create that material.  Apart from the inefficiencies of recreating deleted work, deletion and recreation will lose the history that needs to be maintained to comply with WP:CC-BY-SA.  In light of that, the page should be moved to Hoang v. Amazon.com and edited to conform to the article being about the case rather than the actor (and to avoid WP:PSEUDO issues).  I've changed my position above accordingly. TJRC (talk) 19:10, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. BLP1E, no encyclopedic relevance. --Michig (talk) 07:35, 20 April 2013 (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.