Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quynh Nguyen (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. -- Cirt (talk) 04:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quynh Nguyen

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

This pianist does not meet WP:MUSICBIO. Although she has a nice CV and has studied abroad with a prestigious scholarship, she's not been subject of independent coverage, she's not known for her recordings, she does not perform regularly in major concer venues perform and she hasn't won a major music competition. Of the sources provided in the article one is not accesible (Fulbright program), one is in vietnamese, one does mention her as in two paragraphs but she's not the subject of the article and in the last one she mentioned along with several other performers as young potential solists.Karljoos (talk) 05:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question How come WP:MUSICBIO is a dead link? Please explain JeremyMcClean (talk) 23:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just now I've added a couple of citations to The Boston Globe and one to The New York Times. It is not necessary that articles be exclusively about her, as long as the coverage is non-trivial. Here, with the sources already there and the ones I added, there is enough coverage to satisfy criterion #1 of WP:MUSICBIO. Keep. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are criteria for inclusion/notability, but there are levels of notability. Yes, she is subject of a concert review of the Boston Globe, but she hasn't been the subject of an article! There're millions of performers like her, should they all be included here?--Karljoos (talk) 07:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep WP:BIO standards have risen somewhat since the original nomination in 2007, but the article is adequately sourced to newspapers featuring coverage of her which is "more than a trivial mention" even if not "the main topic of the source material" (WP:N; in fact, she is the main topic of [1]), and I find the nominator's "this will open the floodgates to millions of articles"/WP:OTHERCRAPDOESNTEXIST style of argumentation unconvincing. cab (call) 06:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only passing mention in sources not comprehensive coverage that is independent of the subject. VirtualRevolution (talk) 10:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An article about a pianist who was a child prodigy. The articles sources are fairly decent sources. Certainly doesn't fail WP:BIO. scope_creep (talk) 20:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per "non-trivial mentions in multiple reliable sources". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:35, 27 August 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.