Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nguyễn Xuân Minh (Wikipedian)


 * 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. Normally I think it's much better to not take into account the request ofthe subject of an article, but I consider this a special situation where the notability is so borderline and the subject's reasons for requesting deletion so reasonable, that I consider it a justifiable occasion  & I think that goes for a redirect also. In the circumstances, I think having either would amount to harassing the subject. I'm going to courtesy blank the AfD also in a day or so. I'll leave it up to some other admin to consider courtesy blanking the deletion review.  DGG ( talk ) 02:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Nguyễn Xuân Minh (Wikipedian)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Listing on AfD per Deletion review/Log/2011 September 25. I abstain. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 03:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Although the average English language Wikipedian (such as yours truly) is far from notable, this pioneering Vietnamese language Wikipedian has received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources as listed in the article, and is therefore notable. Google Translate helped me read the gist of two articles.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  03:38, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep for whom that plan to vote deletion you guys should read this earlier discuss here. That's all my reasons to keep this article in this encyclopedia. For many that supported delete they either think Vietnamese people is not important or have nonsense reasons. However i will sum up all the points to the main points that express all of my strongly belief that this person is "absolutely" need to be keep. I have provided enough sources to prove the notability of the person if you can't prove those sources are unreliable then you have no reason to say this person is not notability. Plus the majority of articles in any Wikipedia are like some communes and villages that barely have any info in it and a lot of amateur sports players, writers, actors, actress, artist, local politician, random people who mentioned by the news like one... I can give infinite of names of people who will be forget in few years and then new people will replace them. I'm pretty sure for the most part, after their few years of fame went by nobody will ever remember them and what they did. To me personally Minh is a lot more notable than most people that have articles in here. As long as Wikipedia still there, which i don't think Wikipedia will ever die anyway. Wikipedia will become the greatest encyclopedia in mankind. So therefore Minh's contribution as a founder of Vietnamese Wikipedia will simply be remember always by the readers who wonder who is the founder of Vietnamese Wikipedia. So hundreds years or even thousands the name will live on forever. Don't underestimate the significant of other language version of Wikipedia. No one can argue that Jimmy Wales is notable simply because he founded English Wikipedia. It should hold the same thing for other founders of any other version of Wikipedia. If this person should be delete then so do millions of other articles should end up the same.Trongphu (talk) 05:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Please remember to assume good faith. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you trying to tell me that people want to delete this because they have good faith? Or what do you mean exactly? I have a good faith too.Trongphu (talk) 05:48, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree with you that this article should be kept, Trongphu, and I admire your passion. However, reasonable people may disagree about this article.  I notice on your own talk page that the subject of the article himself has expressed the opinion that he should be discussed in our Vietnamese Wikipedia article, rather than in a free-standing biography.  The point being made by The Bushranger is that you should not assume that those who disagree with you think that Vietnamese topics are "not important" or that their arguments are "nonsense".  Those are not considered persuasive arguments here.  I too advise you to assume good faith of other editors, and I wish you well.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  06:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Let just say they have a good faith but still i feel like their reasons are not strong enough nor does it support their delete decision.Trongphu (talk) 14:16, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Vietnamese Wikipedia article. - DonCalo (talk) 07:37, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - this article had been through AfD in the Vietnamese version of Wikipedia and was deleted. There are 2 fluff pieces in the Vietnamese press several years ago that basically came from the same source.  DHN (talk) 10:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't get fooled by the result of that voting, i got my detail explanations about the voting in Vietnamese Wikipedia here. By the way, this person has been the first and always has been supporting for deletion ever since i first started in Vietnamese Wikipedia. As far as my opinion goes, this person has some kind of intense problem with the article i wrote has its place on the Wikipedia.Trongphu (talk) 14:16, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Earth Wikipedian (talk) 13:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Read WP:BLP1E Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 01:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep At DRV I had doubts because Nguyễn Xuân Minh (Wikipedian) says "He started to contribute to Wikipedia in early 2003 but was not an official member until as 13 October, 2003" whereas Vietnamese Wikipedia says "Vietnamese Wikipedia initially went online in November 2002". This in itself would be a matter for editing rather than deletion unless it transpired that some of the underlying information was unreliable. However explains the discrepancy in dates and  shows the initial admin appointments. So, the external sources seem to be confirmed by information on the Vietnamese Wikipedia itself; are not merely "fluff pieces"; and meet the general notability guidelines.  Even if the corresponding article was deleted on the Vietnamese Wikipedia, that does not matter here. Thincat (talk) 15:51, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The first article ever created in Vietnamese Wikipedia is the Internet Society article,, was created by a member which i'm guessing is not a Vietnamese Wikipedian. In link number 1 of User Thincat, clearly say that's the only article until main page was created by Minh in October 2003 then there were more created articles after the main page was created. So basically the created of the main page marked the official birth of Vietnamese Wikipedia. You can simply understand Vietnamese Wikipedia was initially open in December 2002 then (got abandoned until October 2003) but was not officially open until October 2003. And i do agree with Thincat, the correspond article got deleted in Vietnamese Wikipedia has nothing to do with this debate(despite the fact that i have explained why). Just forget about it and look at the reality and current time and reasonable reasons.Trongphu (talk) 16:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I note that it had been deleted in vi.wiki to show that the people who can read Vietnamese, who can understand the significance of the given sources, had determined that the person is still not notable enough. BTW, the author had also insisted on creating an article about me, the other early Vietnamese Wikipedian. However, my case is even more clear-cut since I have not given any interviews and thus there are no verifiable sources talking about me. DHN (talk) 21:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * the people who can read Vietnamese so what? Their opinions are nothing more than any other members. Just because they can read Vietnamese doesn't mean they are absolutely correct, as i said many time they are just simply jealous of someone has an article on Wikipedia and they don't (my opinion of course). Prove to me that they have a neutral view of point. Not notable enough is an easiest excuse for someone to vote delete on any articles, anyone can use that excuse to vote delete for any articles that they don't like even though the articles have undeniable reliable sources. Plus let me remind you there are only about 10 members voted, it doesn't reflect the whole community opinion. There were just coincidence that many jealous people around at that time of voting taken place. Wanting to take a fair vote? Put it on the notice on the main page of Vietnamese Wikipedia and wait until we got like 40 or 50 votes just about the same amount of votes for many recently sysop voting (this is more important than the sysop voting as my opinion). If the majority voted delete then i will agree with you that the Vietnamese community doesn't accept this article but it has nothing to do English community though (i don't think the majority will vote delete anyway). We are like the 2 different worlds here with different ideas, opinions.Trongphu (talk) 22:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a ridiculous proposition. What's so special about this AfD entry that merits placement on the front page? DHN (talk) 23:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

So many people can notice and take a vote on it and i didn't say it has to be merit or anything special it's just a notice. You can do whatever you want as long as it reached at least 40 votes then i will believe that's what the Vietnamese community wants. Otherwise the few votes don't say anything. Plus to me this is not simply just an AfD, this is an important debate voting, just as important as sysop voting, that's what you did to sysop voting, put it on the front page didn't you or someone else did?(i'm sure someone did) I can ask you the same question: What's so special about this the sysop voting that merits placement on the front page? Isn't sysop suppose to be not a big deal? If sysop voting can be notice at the front page so does the debate. By the way, this proposition is for Vietnamese Wikipedia not English Wikipedia, or anyone can do it if they can. In general, the more people vote = more opinions = more ideas = reflect the whole not minority = the more reliable and neutral of the issue.Trongphu (talk) 00:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't create the main page, I just rewrote it. In fact, Joakim Löfkvist wrote the first article and Vieilletortue had also edited by the time I found the site. See Talk:Vietnamese Wikipedia for all the dates and details I could dig up. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 21:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. This isn't a vote for or against, due to COI. As I've already related to Trongphu, I personally don't think I'm notable enough for my own article, seeing as "Vietnamese Wikipedia" is still a stub. The 2–3 Vietnamese journalists who tried to interview me never seemed to get it – or take "no" as an answer – but as I detailed here, I didn't found the project in any way. I certainly helped, but then in that case, several key individuals from the next couple years would deserve articles too. Dụng, Joakim, and I were the first trio of sysops, while Mekong Bluesman was probably the most prolific non-sysop contributor. You won't find many sources for them, though, because those papers kept the focus on me, Blake Ross style. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 21:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * For Dụng, Joakim cases then it will be really hard since we have like no source outside of Wikipedia. Plus Dung seems to have intense problems with having any kind Wikipedians article on Wikipedia anyway. And for Joakim case, personally i think he doesn't contribute much at all despite the fact he wrote the "first" article in Vietnamese Wikipedia. He barely did anything (just look at the 135 edits he did, there are as well thousands of Vietnamese Wikidians are having more contributing). To me writing the first article in Vietnamese Wikipedia is nothing significant, it's just like any of other articles. The one that significant is the one who contribute a lot since its birth, created main page (personally i think creating the main page is the same as founding it, it was like dead before the main page was created anyway), building stuffs which i don't know in details and first sysop, bureaucrat, checkuser and many more...Trongphu (talk) 22:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Not meant to insult Joakim or anything but well to me he is nothing more than any other normal users. (again it's just my opinion)Trongphu (talk) 04:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge with Vietnamese Wikipedia. The subject appears to meet the letter of WP:GNG, with the debate largely falling as to whether the coverage is reliable. However, in cases of borderline notability in which the subject of the article has voiced an opinion that they prefer not to have an article (as is the case here), that person's opinion should be taken into account. Call it WP:IAR, WP:BLP1E, or whatever you wish, but a brief mention in the Vietnamese Wikipedia article just seems to me to be the correct amount of coverage here. VQuakr (talk) 01:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * NO? Did he directly say he doesn't want to have an article here? He obviously said this is vote for nor against it? Read his words carefully please. I'm guessing you guys have no idea how the thinking of some humble and great people work. They will never admit that they did anything good nor do they care if they are famous. Does that change the fact that they should deserve the honors? No it doesn't change anything. I want to give them what they deserve. You can't force them to say yes so we can have an article about them in here. They are just too humble to say yes.Trongphu (talk) 04:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Let me give you an great example of someone you will know for sure. I remember watching a document about George Washington. He was saying something to someone else that promoted him to something important i can't remember. He, George Washington, said something like he doesn't deserve the honor or trusted from people nor did he accomplish anything and even if he did it's because the help of others. See that? That's how a great person is, I'm really respect and admire those people. And yea you can as well do as what George Washington wish by not give him any credits? Go ahead and merge his article into United States article. In this situation it's exactly the same thing. A great person doesn't want to admit or receive credits for what they did but someone else will acknowledge it for them. I will the one who do that. Again the main subject opinion should not be taken into account because it doesn't determine the notability of the person, NOT AT ALL.Trongphu (talk) 04:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Plus there is no such rule that say you can't write about someone else that obviously notable enough when that person doesn't want to. Example Albert Einstein said he doesn't want to have an article on Wikipedia so is that mean no one can write about him?Trongphu (talk) 04:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * To answer your first question, yes, the subject said they did not think they were notable, here on your talk page (though to be fair, he also mentions that he does not think his opinion is relevant). As I said, I think the subject's opinion should be taken into account in cases of borderline notability. The examples you suggested would not be considered borderline. VQuakr (talk) 05:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No i doubt it. This is the only sentence that has anything to do with his opinion about whether or not to delete "But I hope you understand if I personally disagree." He disagreed doesn't mean he wants his article to be delete, this simply means he doesn't want to admit that he accomplish anything. Since there are no rule about subject's opinion should be considered to determine whether or not it should be delete so therefore your reasons is invalid. Plus here is a key point, he did in fact hint that other people can decide and do whatever is right about his article, he doesn't care but I DO. As my perspective my examples are totally relevant. Albert Einstein is OF COURSE a lot a lot more famous than him, Minh, but so what? We are not comparing their notability. The question is does that person notability enough to have an article on here, answer me that question? That's what we should be really getting at not other circumstances.Trongphu (talk) 22:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete ( or redirect to Vietnamese Wikipedia ): No matter how many news sources cover the subject, being a Wikipedian just isn't a valid claim to notability for a biography. There are many people who have translated MediaWiki interfaces into many languages, even our esteemed tech guru User:Brion( Brion Vibber ), who has considerable media coverage, is redirected to MediaWiki. -- Versa geek  15:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh yea i think Jimmy Wales is a Wikipedian too, you can as well delete him. Wait i know what you're going to say. Jimmy Wales is more famous? Duh of course he is, i think so too. Again let me reminding you we are not comparing their notability, we are looking at whether or not they are notability enough. Plus your point can cause many people to believe that you have some problems with Wikipedian despite the fact that you are one of them yourself. So if they accomplish something then it's because that they are Wikipedians they can't have an article here?? Don't try to compare User:Brion to Minh. There is a big different between a translator and a founder. You think all you do is translate then boom, a miracle came out then here you go with a new version of Wikipedia (sounds like fairy tale to me, this is reality). I don't know details about the process but i know for sure it involves more than just translating like organizing stuffs, make rules, become a symbol head of Vietnamese Wikipedia on news... (because of this many new members registered so therefore further improve Vietnamese Wikipedia better) Without him Vietnamese Wikipedia won't be as decent as we are right now. I can assure you that Minh contribute more than Brion guy including the fact he didn't get pay a single cent. Again we are not comparing who contribute better than whom. Even if Minh contribute less than Brion guy so what? What made him notability is he is a founder of Vietnamese Wikipedia, despite the fact that he didn't make the first edit but he is considered by most people that he is a founder or one of the founders. I think many years from now hundreds or thousands years as long as Wikipedia still alive (i don't think Wikipedia is going to die anyway so to me it will live on FOREVER) his name, Minh, will always be remember as one a founder of Vietnamese Wikipedia, my point right here can prove that he will be remember longer than most of the articles about other people. I'm confident to say for the majority of the articles about other people, in 10 years at max no one will remember about them and what they did.Trongphu (talk) 23:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

At my bottom line, i feel like you're pretty stubborn. Never admit that you are wrong. I'm not saying i'm right or anything. I could be wrong despite the fact that i believe i'm right but i don't deny the possibilities of me being wrong. I'm glad and ready to know when to stop if someone has enough reasonable proofs to prove me wrong. I know that you have hatred or maybe just unfavor toward me due to fact that i overturn your speedy deletion, which is pretty shame as a sysop (i wouldn't be ashamed if i was you, everyone made mistake, no one is perfect). I know you're not going to admit it but well in your heart just know don't let the hatred harm your personality. You vote delete because you hate me or because you really think it does deserve it? I'm fine with whatever but well i'm sure you just want the best for Wikipedia, and have a lot of trusted from many people otherwise you can't be a sysop. (i want the best for Wikipedia too)My point is don't let a issue turn you turn good to bad. Well after all i never admit that i'm 100% right nor i ever said that anyone need to listen to me. I did everything as what i believe in and won't ever give up until someone prove...Trongphu (talk) 23:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh yea forgot to mention that Jimmy is overall a lot notable then Minh but well there are few things Minh has more impact than Jimmy. To us, Vietnamese people (not including jealous people), Minh of course play a more significant role than Jimmy. Minh is the youngest bureaucrats ever in any Wiki projects, less than 18 years old, or for sure of one of the youngest. Plus his sysop role also reflect a remarkable accomplishment too, at the age of 16.(i know there some sysop that became sysops at age of 16). In term of that, Minh is maybe better than Jimmy. They are not quite relevant, anyway just an example of some accomplish that most people can't do, we should not compare them anyway.Trongphu (talk) 23:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. After ensuring that I was reading a Wikipedia article and not a PR piece....sorry, I'm not seeing the significant coverage by reliable sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * weak keep Looks like two solid sources. Barely passes WP:N, but passes it does seem to.  Hobit (talk) 01:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Read WP:BLP1E Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 01:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you should be the one that reconsider about your redirect vote Seb. This person is not notable just because only one event. He was interviewed and mentioned by the biggest Vietnamese news many times not once. Don't forget that his credit as a founder of Vietnamese Wikipedia will be lasting for hundreds or thousands of years as long as Wikipedia still alive. (read above for more info).Trongphu (talk) 01:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No, dude. I just put refimprove up again &mdash; you give one source that talks about his fame (that one source has been put online by two webpages), and that's what you call "several"? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 01:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've got to say that I don't think WP:BLP1E applies here. Founding something large and continuing to work on it is rarely a "single event".  The question is coverage and he seems to have it (just barely, but still). Hobit (talk) 15:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep While there is a little too much blowing sunshine up his a*** for my liking, the subject is sufficiently notable for Wikipedia as a founder of Vietnamese Wikipedia who has attracted some media attention.  Deterence  Talk 01:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Read WP:BLP1E Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 01:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect to and mention in Vietnamese Wikipedia, per WP:BLP1E. He hasn't done anything notable outside of vi.wikipedia. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 01:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * So what? It has nothing to do with the notability of the person. Plus he is also a sysop and bureaucrat of vi.wiktionary and played somewhat important role in other wiki projects. By using your logic i can say Jimmy is not notable since "He hasn't done anything notable outside of English wikis. You should not look at the quantity (like how many notable things they did) but look at how much it's going to impact mankind in any part of the world. As i explained in details above, Vietnamese Wikipedia is going to have a profound lasting impact in the world especially in a country, where Wikipedia is an only source, like Vietnam.Trongphu (talk) 01:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Vietnamese Wikipedia. This article is a very weak biography.  Much more content should be present at Vietnamese Wikipedia before the subject has a stand alone article.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Another irrelevant reason to redirect. The Vietnamese Wikipedia article has nothing to do with the founder, Minh, at all. Weak biography is not a valid reason to say this person is not notable.Trongphu (talk) 01:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The person is "known for contributing to the Vietnamese Wikipedia", and yet Vietnamese Wikipedia makes no mention of him? This says that the person is not notable.  Perhaps it can be fixed by improving Vietnamese Wikipedia.  "The Vietnamese Wikipedia article has nothing to do with the founder, Minh, at all."  Perhaps you mis-typed?  If not, then you are saying the person is not notable even for Vietnamese Wikipedia.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Why so many people just keep looking at other random reasons to try to delete this? The key point here is is this person notable enough? If no one can prove the sources are unreliable then the result is pretty obvious but then people just made up a lot of other reasons have nothing to do with the article itself. Please think and read carefully before you guys vote.Trongphu (talk) 01:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources alone are not sufficient for a stand alone article. See WP:BIO.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:45, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you need to step back. Don't accuse people of "not thinking" just because they disagree with you. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 01:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Did i? Don't accuse me of accusing people when you didn't understand my words. I think i have a right to express my opinion on other people that i feel like they don't have reasonable reasons. You are dictator? Who give you power to tell me to step back? And i think you should find some other better proofs to back up your vote otherwise i don't think it will be valid enough here.Trongphu (talk) 02:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete – As an original person who requested a speedy. undefined — Bill william compton  Talk   02:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Another not valid reason, i think your speedy is being overturned which proven that your reason is invalid by now.Trongphu (talk) 02:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not up to you to decide whether a !voter's rationale is valid or not and I suggest you knock it off. All you're doing is making other users !vote "delete" in an attempt to spite you for calling names and belittling opinions.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  02:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think i have a freedom to express my opinion to whether or not they are rational. And if they vote "delete" because they can't argue with me with reasonable discussion which proven to me and everyone that they have short temper and are not trusted since their point of view can be easily distracted by other factor such as unable to provide rational discussion and started hatred toward someone has more reasonable ideas, also can be called bias. Listen now i never say i'm 100% correct but if you can't prove me wrong then... Tell you what even if i lose in this debate but to me i have won a victory to proven a rotten system that have too many people around who can't provide the rational reasons nor can they back up their statement, they just vote then ran away and avoid responsibility. They have power to vote, Power goes with responsibility. Their votes are hatred votes not rational votes.Trongphu (talk) 03:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This isn't a battle, and if you don't want to take my advice, it's on you.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  03:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Did i ever say this is a battle? This is a discussion place where everyone is free to talk.(how many times i need to confirm my intention as a peacefully contributor who wants to fight for the right?) I'm welcome everyone to debate it's up to them whether or not they respond, i'm always ready to listen and change if they can prove me wrong as i said a billion times (i know i exaggerated it). "it's on you", yea it is, i have been fighting this for a long time now with a large amount of time being consumed by discussion mainly by me. I think i can endure the rest, probably this discussion will end in a week or 2 at max. When i said i will fight to the end that's mean i will.Trongphu (talk) 04:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * — Bill william compton's reason for voting for Delete is simply nonsensical. Seriously, what does "As an original person who requested a speedy" even mean?  Deterence  Talk 04:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Why would you say that it's "not 'a' valid reason". If I was the one who nominated it for speedy citing a criteria of "unremarkable person" then I think it's pretty much obvious that what my rationale is. Being a Wikipedia user doesn't make this user notable enough. And this is not a debate, so I'm not going to fall in any escalating argument. undefined — Bill william compton  Talk   10:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You nomination is being overturned and that is a strong proof of saying your point of view is wrong, consider by many. And this is a debate. I think you have to provide a legit reason not just random reason according to your bias opinion.Trongphu (talk) 20:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Vietnamese Wikipedia, leaving content in the history to be merged. I'm really on the fence as to keep/delete, and I see how this is a debatable case as far as notability goes.  As Minh himself has suggested merging the content to the article about vi.wiki, it seems the best compromise that should make everyone equally (un)happy.  Cheers.   lifebaka ++ 05:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Contribution to Wikipedia should never be counted as grounds for notability alone, nor should project-internal "achievements" such as being the youngest sysop, the first sysop on project X, or whatever else; even mentioning such pieces of trivia reeks of project-internal navel gazing. One or two news reports mentioning this person in the context of "who are the people behind..." reports doesn't constitute significant coverage of the person as a subject in its own right; it's still basically just coverage of the project. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "who are the people behind..." is just one of the news he is being mentioned, there are many interviewed and news talk specific about him not just a coverage of the project. Let me remind you he is not notably because he is the youngest of any kind. He is notably because he is considered one of the founder of Vietnamese Wikipedia(he is considered by many to be the most important role), Read many discussion above for details of how much Vietnamese Wikipedia impact Vietnam society. As i said a billion time (i know i exaggerated it), as long as Wikipedia still live his name will always be remember by the Vietnamese people who wonder he found the Vietnamese Wikipedia. (i don't think Wikipedia is going to die anyway so his name will live on forever). This point proved that he is a lot more notable than the majority of people who have an article which will be forgotten in like few years or 10 years max.Trongphu (talk) 20:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not even close to an encyclopedically notable biography in my view.  "Youngest age for any bureaucrat" and "one of the youngest sysops" are simply not claims of notability for any biography regardless of which wiki he might work on.  Quale (talk) 07:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "Youngest age for any bureaucrat" and "one of the youngest sysops" are not the reason why he is notable. He is famous because he is a founder of Vietnamese Wikipedia. Read many discussion above for details of how much Vietnamese Wikipedia impact Vietnam society.Trongphu (talk) 20:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * delete per WP:BLP1E, no evidence this can be expanded in an notable biographic profile. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Please give me evidence that it can not expand into a notable biographic profile? Don't try to predict future since you are not a prophecy.Trongphu (talk) 20:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Vietnamese Wikipedia, although even that is slightly perverse given that article doesn't actually mention him at all; one would have thought if a subject's has only one claim of notability, it would be mentioned in the article about that subject.  Still, there is no reason why he could not be mentioned there.  Certainly, the subject doesn't pass the bar for a stand-alone article (as he even admits himself). Black Kite (t) (c) 12:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect and perhaps Merge relevant content. While one could make the argument that he may meet the WP:GNG by a hair, it seems to make more sense to redirect and work on the article about the Vietnamese Wikipedia for now. Particularly in light of the comments made by the subject of the article, who seems to be a very intelligent and reasonable person. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Check WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO & WP:NPF. He fails to meet any of the Notability guidelines as far as i can see. Just because he was a force in creating the Vietnamese Wikipedia, does not make him notable. Dusty777 (talk) 18:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I can use the same logic as you did to prove any articles not notable. "just because Jimmy Wales was a force in creating the English Wikipedia, does not make him notable". (i know he created the whole system but technically he only involves in English wiki).Trongphu (talk) 20:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Jimmy Wales created multiple sites, he formed the Wikimedia Foundation. He did the ground work for almost every Wiki on the net. Not only that, he also has collected numerous awards. You cannot say that the logic i used fits with Jimmy. Dusty777 (talk) 22:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - not notable, like most Wikipedians. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  18:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 'like most Wikipedians duh? Of course most Wikipedians are not notable enough to have an article here but this person is not part of the "most Wikipedians". Did you even bother to read the argument and info before you vote?Trongphu (talk) 20:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete: Navel-gazing. Even Mxn himself says that he doesn't deserve a Wikipedia article.— Ryulong ( 竜龙 ) 21:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'd say redirect, but seriously.... who is going to actually look it up? Having sources doesn't mean notable. I have gone through every criteria we have for notability of individuals, and I can't find anything that the subject qualifies under. Trusilver  22:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:N? Certainly looks to meet the letter of that. Hobit (talk) 09:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Vietnamese Wikipedia, merging any relevant content. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge to Vietnamese Wikipedia. Technically he possibly meets the letter of WP:GNG, but common sense would seem to suggest that what little content we have on him would be better covered in the wider article since it all relates to that. If he becomes notable for something else in the future we can split back out then. Alzarian16 (talk) 17:38, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Passes WP:BASIC with and . To a lesser extent, this article also qualifies notability. Perhaps there are more reliable sources available. Northamerica1000 (talk) 16:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails WP:GNG, not notable as an early Wikipedia editor for one of the hundreds of Wikipedias.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  17:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect Looking through the discussion I see several people saying he does not meet the notability guidelines, even though he seems to meet the letter of it. I suspect the underlying reason behind is that this concerns a wikipedian, one of us. Although not codified in policy as far as I know, Jimbo said in his statement of principles: "The topic of Wikipedia articles should always look outward, not inward at the Wikipedia itself". I fully agree with this sentiment and taking also into account the opinion from User:Mxn, wp:BLP1E and wp:PERMASTUB I think it best to redirect this article. Yoenit (talk) 12:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - In the event the article is redirected to Vietnamese Wikipedia, it would be prudent to also merge information from this article "Nguyễn Xuân Minh (Wikipedian)" into the Vietnamese Wikipedia article. The topic of this article does indeed pass WP:GNG per the availability of reliable sources, and it would be functional to include it, along with the references, in the Vietnamese Wikipedia article. I stand by my "keep" rationale above that this topic's notability qualifies its inclusion as a stand-alone article. Northamerica1000 (talk) 16:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. To split hairs a bit, the original target of that rule seems to have been the kind of content that we now house at the Meta-Wiki. At the time, the Phase II software didn't support a Wikipedia: namespace, and talk pages were subpages of actual articles, so we had to be careful not to blur the lines between the encyclopedia and project-related discussions. Notice how "Wikipedia" was basically what About is today. But thanks for posting that link; I hadn't encountered the principles before. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 18:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - He is marginally notable at best and in his own opinion does not deserve an article. While the subjects opinion is not normally a criteria, when we have a marginally notable person who states they do not want an article, I see no reason to not honor that.  GB fan 12:41, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * merge or redirect to his notability. Off2riorob (talk) 15:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete for lack of notability and coverage in reliable sources. BTW, subject seems like a great contributor. Drmies (talk) 17:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you explain that? On the face of it we've got solid reliable sources--two newspaper articles solely on the subject.  I'm curious why you don't find them reliable or enough for the GNG. Hobit (talk) 22:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Read WP:ANYBIO. Two newspaper articles does not make him notable enough to qualify for WP:GNG. Dusty777 (talk) 01:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you explain that? First of all, note that ANYBIO defers to the GNG.  Secondly the GNG does indicate that multiple reliable sources is enough.  We've got that.  Articles in major newspapers are generally regarded as outstanding RSes.  And these are solely on the topic of the subject.  The longer I'm here the more I think people don't quite understand our inclusion guidelines.  Hobit (talk) 14:19, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Because verifiability and notability are two separate things. Just because something has reliable sources doesn't automatically mean it's notable and worthy of an article. Trusilver  16:23, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd claim you are fundamentally misunderstanding what notability is on Wikipedia. "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list."  There are a number of essays that do a good job describing the issue, but WP:JNN is pretty solid as is WP:NMO.  Basically, you should largely check your opinion of what is "notable" and "not notable" at the door and use our notability guidelines instead.  Of course they are just guidelines and so a matter of personal opinion should enter in a bit (WP:IAR). Hobit (talk) 17:20, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I have taken "your" notability guidelines under advisement. I choose instead to use well-established guidelines such as WP:BIO and WP:ACADEMIC, which this person does not pass. Trusilver  17:55, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll admit that my Vietnamese is a bit rusty, but the Vietbao article isn't very long, and in both cases it is difficult (for me) to establish the notability and importance of those publications. I'll take the subject's word for it, that they are not so important that the GNG or any other guideline is satisfied by those two publications. Besides, two articles don't necessarily mean that a person is notable, but those points are brought up above already, and it is clear to me that there are different opinions there and different readings of our guidelines. I choose to fall on one side, and Hobit, I hope you enjoy the view from yours. I'll wave at you if you look my way. Best, Drmies (talk) 21:39, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * merge to Vietnamese Wikipedia, not notable. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:45, 7 October 2011 (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.