Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kate Hoang

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. Daniel (talk) 00:35, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Hoang

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Spam, WP:NLAWYER failure JohnnyHunt (talk) 13:34, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 November 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:01, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:47, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:47, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:47, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Comment. WP:NLAWYER is not a policy. There may be coverage in Vietnamese like this that I'm not qualified to assess, but the English coverage ([1], [2]) is pretty thin despite the copious WP:REFBOMBing. I will also say that the nom seems pretty WP:PRECOCIOUS. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:02, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @AleatoryPonderings: The headline says "Second generation: Kate Hoang: First Vietnamese woman to be nominated for RIWA in 2020. The first para says she was then the VP of the Vietnamese Australian community and does community work for refugees, the second says what types of law her sole practice does, the third says she has organised some human rights protests/vigils and the fourth was that she was nominated for Rotary Inspirational Women’s Awards. Bumbubookworm (talk) 18:46, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep- She seems notable enough. I searched and she has appeared in interviews both in English language and Vietnamese language (although Vietnamese is not my language so I can't say about that but the interview and coverage were in notable channels). In the reference section I saw that she also featured (a few times) in the news released by Parliament of New South Wales and received a couple of awards too for her work. I just think that the writing and structure of the article can be improved a bit. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by IamJayYas (talk • contribs) 06:07, 7 November 2021 (UTC) [reply]

- Note Iam JayYas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Billyatthewheels (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have been blocked as socks of one another Bumbubookworm (talk) 04:06, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Multiple interviews can be found on different channels (including verified channels). A few References about her political career might be weak but overall the person seems notable enough. Thanks Billyatthewheels (talk) 22:20, 7 November 2021 (UTC)WP:SOCKSTRIKE User:力 (powera, π, ν) 17:34, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Iam JayYas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Billyatthewheels (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have been blocked as socks of one another Bumbubookworm (talk) 04:06, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - A small businessowner (sole practitioner) lawyer with no notable legal achievements. Leaders of ethnic community bodies are not notable, and nothing actually about her achievements except that she was wheeled out to endorse a Senator who decided to parachute into a working class area. All the mentions are minor things in the media about inconsistency in political issues Bumbubookworm (talk) 04:06, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
keep probably. This one really needs some input from people who can read Vietnamese. Discounted "community leaders" aside, not everyone gets this type of responsibility and profile by a national reliable media organisation. Aoziwe (talk) 12:59, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I translated the Vietnamese thing above. I'm guessing you heard about the Tu Le stuff a couple of months ago. Kate Hoang came up tangentially a few times then, but Tu Le was the main subject of a lot of national newspaper articles and even ended up in the NYT. Do you think a Tu Le (a person who was blocked from running for parliament) article would/should survive? KH hasn't even run for parliament (which covers the whole community and Aus has compulsory voting) but is a leader of a community body that covers 1% of Australians (per census) similar to a union or the like that may cover 1% of the workforce. Also note that if one is a paying member of some organisation or own a few shares in something, you will get papers mailed to you when the election of the board comes up. For local councils voting is optional but the electoral commission sends you the forms when it comes around. I can't say specifically for other groups, but there is no membership log of Vietnamese Australians. If there is an election (and in the two states and territories that I've lived in, most times nobody new nominates so the same person keeps the job over and over) and you know about the election which isn't well-known, all you have to do is show them some ID card with a Vietnamese surname, so not exactly properly regulated. The state committee folks then choose the national leaders. Also, the government often needs ethnic community representatives to translate/disseminate messages. Simply organising/reading these out doesn't make one notable or the coverage about her Bumbubookworm (talk) 18:46, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I broadly agree with you. In other words what I was meaning was that, if a reputable major information dissemination organisation believes the subject is "notable" enough to be used as an information vanguard then we too in wikipedia land need to look more carefully. Aoziwe (talk) 10:59, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Between the socking and the need to evaluate Vietnamese-language references, there is not yet consensus. As there is some reference bombing in the article, keep supporters identifying the best three sources here would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:力 (powera, π, ν) 17:32, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:33, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as coverage isn't in-depth or if there is some coverage then if fails under WP:ROUTINE. Therefore, it fails WP:SIGCOV. For me, it is WP:TOOSOON. 173.215.25.47 (talk) 14:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see there are copyviolations too. Speedy delete I recommend. 173.215.25.47 (talk) 14:09, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and coverage is WP:ROUTINE.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:07, 28 November 2021 (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.