Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nguyễn Phúc Bửu Chánh

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 no consensus. Nominator is a sock, so this could have been speedily closed a whie ago, but we're here now. The rest of the debate leads to no real consensus. Courcelles (talk) 20:14, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nguyễn Phúc Bửu Chánh[edit]

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

This biography does not assert notability in any way, except as founder of the "Vietnamese Constitutional Monarchist League", an article with not even one source created by the same user. This article does not have any sources either, and in the article itself states he does not represent the royal family or have any legitimacy. Nor is he related to the royal family. Cagepanes (talk) 03:02, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Cagepanes (talk) 03:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:49, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article has existed since 2004, was the subject of some rather intense edit wars in its early history, and was the subject of an AfD discussion in 2006 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nguyen Phuc Buu Chanh), which was a fairly easy Keep but at a time when WP:BLP standards were far looser than they are now. While the article has never had any inline sourcing, earlier versions of the article do contain external links which might (or might not) be usable as sources. Also, some earlier versions of the article contain unsourced but potentially credible claims of significance which, if verified, might suggest that the subject's claims could have a limited basis in decisions by ex-emperor Bảo Đại towards the end of his life, though if so they were either never accepted or interpreted very differently by Bảo Đại's family. Basically, I am seeing enough potential leads from previous versions of the article that one or other of them might just establish notability, but not enough likelihood of this to search further. PWilkinson (talk) 11:44, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:30, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 13:21, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:31, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:31, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per PWilkinson's helpful hint, I went to an older version of the article. There are at least two good sources: this article in The Cornell Daily Sun and this article^WebCite in the Philadelphia City Paper. I think there is just enough material here to retain the article. Cunard (talk) 06:23, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Revert to the version found by User:Cunard. --Slashme (talk) 11:19, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE AfD started by sock of indeffed user Kbabej. Suggest discarding this AfD per WP:DENY. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:51, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of notability. Sourcing is not the real issue here. Even looking back to the better version proffered by User:Cunard, the only real assertion of notability is that the subject of the article advocates having somebody else on the throne. And as for being the president of an organization, this does not confer notability on the instant subject, even if the organization itself were notable (and in this regard, note that the organization itself survived its recent AfD only because nobody bothered to state an opinion on it). Finally, sockpuppetry is bad and should be eliminated, but that is not a reason to waive the notability requirements for the instant article. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:24, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for or lack of notability. Sourcing is not the real issue here. – but notability per Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline is determined by sources, not assertions of importance or fame. Cunard (talk) 03:45, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the opportunity to clarify my position. My point was that, even if you resolved all of the sourcing issues to everybody's satisfaction, you still would not have resolved the question of notability. If, as is the case here, the subject's main claim to notability is that he advocates the ascension of some other person to the throne, then he himself is not a notable person. And this remains true even if you succeed in finding reliable sources for that claim. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:07, 15 September 2015 (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.