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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anthony A. Nguyen[edit]

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

Autobiographical article about a scholar of questionable notability. Contested PROD. Google news search on Anthony A. Nguyen shows only one result, a simple public record that does not indicate notability. Little significant coverage from independent sources found in a standard search. MikeWazowski (talk) 00:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment - after filing this, I noticed that Anthony A.Tuan Nguyen had been speedy deleted as a copyvio of this link - this appears to be the case here as well. MikeWazowski (talk) 00:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. There's no evidence of notability, and even if there were the facts that this is entirely self-written and entirely lacking in good sources mean we would need a complete rewrite to get to something verifiable and encyclopedic. By the way, Anhtuandoannguyen1976 (talk · contribs) removed the AfD notices; I restored it and told him on his talk page that that's not the right way to contest it. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete This editor seems intent on self-promotion; his only purpose here seems to be recreating his autobiographical article and inserting his name and website into other articles. COI issues aside, this is a poorly-sourced puff-piece for a non-notable person, and clearly doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Passes neither WP:PROF nor WP:BIO at the moment, but has potential for WP-notability in the future. This is a good example of an article that has been created too early. WP inclusion is about notability, not potential for future notability, however strong that potential may appear to be.--Eric Yurken (talk) 15:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Well, let's be honest, just because the article is self-written and lacks in good sources doesn't mean it will be deleted. We know the AfD is a flawed process, power by numbers and the random admin who takes a glance at the "rationale" looks at the number of votes. So, that being said, yeah, he fails WP:ACADEMIC and WP:BIO. Lot's of WP:PEACOCK can't disguise lack of notability. Jimsteele9999 (talk) 23:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[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.