Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Van Le Ngoc (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. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:46, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Van Le Ngoc[edit]

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

Nothing at all actually convincing and I'm not convinced by anything listed at the other AfD, there's nothing to establish convincing independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 20:23, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 12:01, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 12:01, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Coverage in Vietnamese here, here and here. Indication of Shanghai commissions here (cancelled for political reasons) and here/here; the latter would be expected to have some Chinese coverage. Brief but qualitative coverage in Telegraph; The Arts Desk; Ballet News; Guardian; Express; The Stage; etc. At worst, it's a TOOSOON case, but he has at least marginal notability based on only online sources, and I suspect there'd be significant coverage in offline sources. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 12:24, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:23, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:23, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:23, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep – Meets WP:BASIC per a review of available sources. Perhaps more Vietnamese and Asian sources are available that I am unable to access. See source examples below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]

Weak Keep - Looks like there's enough in the sources linked above to satisfy WP:BIO. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:14, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The Keep votes themselves are not even confident as they themselves still question whether there's the needed substance and solidity for accepting. Looking at a few of these found them to still be rather questionable. SwisterTwister talk 05:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – My !vote is confident; the opinion above is entirely non-congruent with my post. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:11, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the sources provided above by North America seem to me to enough to meet WP:BASIC. Vanamonde (talk) 05:54, 16 August 2016 (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.