This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hoang v. Amazon.com, Inc. article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This page was proposed for deletion by GimliDotNet (talk · contribs) on 7 January 2012 with the comment: Unremarkable actress, interest is of a transient news article. No evidence of significant discussion outside initial news report. It was contested by Jojhutton (talk · contribs) on January 7, 2012 with the comment: R U Kidding? |
This article was nominated for deletion on 13 April 2013 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that an image or photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
"Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." 87.112.182.67 (talk) 14:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I have to say I feel pretty strongly that she fails on all counts r.e. notability. This actress has almost exclusively been seen in bit parts in niche (small market) films and some re-enactment/"reality" t.v. shows. Most of her credits are for un-released short films and un-aired sitcom pilots. This is not to say she's a bad actress, simply that she's a barely-seen, rarely-heard actress, and not notable. (Sidebar: when you sign up for IMDBPro, your date of birth is (or in any event was when I subscribed) among the information that's required on the information/listing form, so I don't expect this lawsuit to go very far anyway) Snozzwanger (talk) 06:56, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Why is her date of birth not given in the article? It is freely available in several reliable sources, it is highly relevant, and that is really all that is needed for it to be included in an article. The Wikimedia Foundation has its own lawyers who evaluate the legality of BLP info; this is not for individual WP editors to assess. Lampman (talk) 15:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
As the admin who semi-protected this page, I admit that the semi-protection was preemptive (no vandalism had occurred yet). Therefore, I have no objection to any other admin reducing the duration of semi-protection, if they think that a shorter period of semi-protection is needed, or none at all. Just let me know if you do so; you don't need my permission. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:05, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
This is a lawsuit. Perhaps it is better to say it is a 'transient lawsuit' since it has been dismissed. It does however bring up the question of what information a website can publicly give about a person whose life might depend on whether that information is public or private. I think the judge probably sided with common sense (age is not enough of a 'private' fact, especially since such things as birth certificates, tax forms, and passports are public information). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daydreamer302000 (talk • contribs)
Just for accuracy, the lawsuit has been re-instated, this time in her own name, so all of the above applies and is consequently on-going... Watch this space! Manxwoman (talk) 20:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Some source say that Junie Hoang, aka Huong Hoang, was born in a village outside of Saigon on January 2, 1945. Happy (belated!) 67th birthday Junie! Can this be included in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.71.14.120 (talk) 21:26, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
A couple news reports that spell out a little more clearly the wrongdoing she's alleging, and some of IMDB's position: New York Times (March 4, 2012); and Variety (March 19, 2013). Basically, she's saying that IMDB used her registration info to get her full name (in violation, she says, of her agreement with IMDB), and then used that to go to credit-card databases and the like to get her birth date. IMDB is claiming that first, she lied and then gave fake ID to show a different age, and then asked for the wrong age she gave to be removed; and that as part of that, she asked them to provide evidence of her actual age (which they say authorized them to search). Nuanced and a bit complex, and worth setting out accurately and carefully to make sure we stay within WP:NPOV. Until today, it sounded like she was just complaining that IMDB had posted some truthful information about her, without any mention of what she's really complaining about. I've updated it some, but it needs some more, written both carefully and accurately. I'm unable at the moment to address this, but will in a day or two if no one else does. TJRC (talk) 00:14, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
The Guardian are saying she's currently 42. Span (talk) 14:57, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Moved from the article, in case someone wants to use them as sources. Note that links to the individual parties' websites in inappropriate per WP:ELNO. --Ronz (talk) 16:19, 11 November 2016 (UTC)