Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dang Thi Minh Hanh (2nd nomination)

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. Davewild (talk) 18:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dang Thi Minh Hanh[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability is questionable - no significant awards or contributions to fashion, insufficient/total lack of 3rd party verifiable sources. Reqluce (talk) 01:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We need to ask a Vietnamese speaker about this one. I would be somewhat opposed to deletion until a Vietnamese speaker has looked at it because we might be using the wrong search terms. Should we be looking for Minh Hanh? Anyway, I've asked an uninvolved editor who (I think) speaks Vietnamese to have a look.—S Marshall T/C 09:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- - "Dang Thi Minh Hanh" is the relevant search string. Apparently there is a newspaper ref in teh top 10, not withstanding the spelling error YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 04:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The only reason that this article lacked sources is that the nominator removed them. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch... Phil Bridger's absolutely nailed it. The nominator did indeed remove the references from the article before opening the AFD. Speedy close.—S Marshall T/C 00:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In defense of the nom, the links had gone bad (but the articles nonetheless easy to locate). However, the edit summary Removed NON ENGLISH source as per WP: VERIFIABILITY suggests a misunderstanding on the part of the nominator. decltype (talk) 07:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.