Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nguyễn Lưu Hải Đăng

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. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 12:37, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nguyễn Lưu Hải Đăng

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

The sources seem to be links to lists and to the subject's own works. I do not see anything that looks like a reliable source and when I search on the name all I see are social media pages and the like. Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. Since the top search results are this article and social media the article is likely WP:PROMO. Jbh ^Talk 16:28, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 16:29, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 16:29, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:04, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article (if kept) needs to be moved to Ưu Đàm Hoa, his pen name, and you need to perform searches under that name.

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

Leaning Keep for authoring a large number of novels, and I was able to verify many of them. Timmyshin (talk) 15:20, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:42, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep obviously sources are almost entirely in Vietnamese, but that's allowed. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:42, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is not the language it is the content. None seem to be RS. Several are just lists and one [1] is about a flower and says nothing about him. There is not, as near as I can tell, a single independent RS on the page. Jbh ^Talk 14:19, 20 November 2016 (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.

~