Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angie Vu Ha

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 deleted, without prejudice, of course, to recreation if new and better sources are found. bd2412 T 02:54, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Angie Vu Ha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Excessively promotional in nature. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:47, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:59, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:59, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:59, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete an overly promotional article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:33, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete Weak Keep - The article is indeed an attempt at promotion, but it turns out that spinning records in her underwear is not her only occupation. While most of the article's sources are routine media listings, she has gotten some fairly legitimate press for Playboy shoots and an appearance on America's Got Talent. She also made the news for something in her personal life that is suspiciously absent from the article: a prison sentence for parental kidnapping, though that was only covered in less-than-stellar sources (e.g. [1], [2], [3]). Her accomplishments are cheesy but I would not be surprised if other voters find evidence of basic notability in the trashier side of WP:CELEBRITY. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:06, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changed vote after finding Bullamore's statement below a little more convincing. Quality of sources is more important than quality of her achievements. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:25, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - The article has its faults, not least its promotional slant. Also, all of the sources quoted may not be of the finest quality - nevertheless, she has amassed a serious number of references, for someone who is deemed to be non-notable. It needs toning down but there seems to be sufficient coverage of her across several distinct subject matters. Surely the New York Daily News and New York Post, for example, are strong enough sources. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 15:31, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, I'm not sure that New York newspapers covering the arrest of a person in New York is sufficient for notability. Second, the promotionalism is so bad that this should be deleted per WP:DEL4 and WP:DEL9 even if it is notable, unless somebody fixes it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:58, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is kept, I hereby volunteer to help clean it up. You could put on an edit tag in the meantime. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:28, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:36, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep some News coverage results suggest sufficient notability. Mmcele (talk) 18:01, 23 December 2018 (UTC) Blocked sock. GSS (talk|c|em) 09:13, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Leaning delete always for a borderline-notable person who has been WP:Reference bombed. In checking sources for notability, I find they too many are not reliable, and the include BLP issues or violations. There was a burst of coverage 2011-12, sexiest DJ, followed by personal legal troubles that kept her in the gossip newspapers. She is not a private person and this page should be deleted. It is not so much "promotion" as an old old fans relic. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:57, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Browsing the many sources that are completely unsuitable for Wikipedia, it is very clear that there is indeed a promotional aspect. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:01, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The coverage on her all appears to be routine. Claiming the subject is 'the world's sexiest DJ' is not a good enough claim for notability, and that epithet is inherently subjective. Jip Orlando (talk) 22:05, 3 January 2019 (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.