Talk:Đặng Trần Côn
Latest comment: 11 years ago by LittleBenW in topic This page should not be speedy deleted because...
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 17 December 2012 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
This page should not be speedy deleted because...
editThis page should not be speedily deleted because... This is a joke right? In ictu oculi (talk) 23:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- There is a complete lack of sourcing for this article. The sources given do not show notability. They are not substantial. A subject can have a lot of Google hits and still not be notable, and I believe that is the case here. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- It makes a claim to notability. Not going to speedy delete it because it doesn't clearly fall within the remit of CSD A7. Feel free to nominate it for deletion and the community can have a proper debate about it. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:51, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- I am somewhat concerned that an experienced editor can even make such a nomination. a simple check "Dang Tran Con + poet" would reveal 250 hits in Google Books. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:56, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- "deprived of light for his studies as a result of the edict" doesn't seem to make any sense. No edict is mentioned elsewhere. LittleBen (talk) 01:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- I am somewhat concerned that an experienced editor can even make such a nomination. a simple check "Dang Tran Con + poet" would reveal 250 hits in Google Books. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:56, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- It makes a claim to notability. Not going to speedy delete it because it doesn't clearly fall within the remit of CSD A7. Feel free to nominate it for deletion and the community can have a proper debate about it. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:51, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- There is a complete lack of sourcing for this article. The sources given do not show notability. They are not substantial. A subject can have a lot of Google hits and still not be notable, and I believe that is the case here. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)