Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chau Nguyen

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. Or no consensus, but there's certainly not consensus to delete. Sandstein 08:18, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Chau Nguyen

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Chau Nguyen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Fails the WP:GNG. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:49, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Television, Vietnam, and Texas. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:49, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:GNG is not met. Coverage appears to be local, which does not suggest encyclopedic notability per WP:AUD. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:46, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:AUD is for companies and organisations not people, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:56, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

You're right. I've amended my !vote accordingly, but the crux of it still stands. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:41, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

• Keep since twice the Houston Chronicle has dedicated reports about our subject, one in 2007 and another in 2011, demonstrating its interest to the media, while a Fox News podcast interview with Nguyen, in her capacity as a psychotherapist, on the issue of self-harm, amplifies the evidence supporting notability. Additionally, she gets traction in the news as city-appointed chief strategist for the Houston Area Women’s Center, while also serving on the city's Women’s Commission. -The Gnome (talk) 16:41, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

  The interview is with the local Fox affiliate on its newscast, not the national Fox News. The local "top 30" award is simply that, and the information about her appointment to a local organization is a primary source. One should expect coverage of local media personalities and their activities (both during and subsequent to their media careers) within their own markets, and I fail to see how we can legitimately build a WP:BLP based solely on such, especially when most of it is "human interest" pieces such as the Chronicle articles. --Kinu ^t/_c 13:50, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

"Human interest" pieces are defined as "feature stories that discuss people or pets in an emotional way." They "present people and their problems, concerns, or achievements in a way that brings about interest, sympathy or motivation in the reader or viewer." I challenge you to offer evidence that either of the two Fox pieces are anything like this - unless, of course, any report about issues such as psychotherapy, self-harm, and others, are automatically categorized as "human interest" stories, i.e. soft news. Which would be a major mistake. Incidentally, a local Fox news outlet, being a subsidiary of Fox Corporation, carries a significant weight as a source of quality.

As to your dismissal of Nguyen's top-30 award as "just that", it's an rather strange argument whose substance I'm unable to fathom. All awards are "just" awards. Two reports from a subsidiary of a major news corporation dedicated solely to our subject, news about her activities beyond journalism, interviews of Nguyen about important social subjects, e.g. self harm, and more, are way over the notability hurdle of WP:GNG. Finally, please note that WP:LOCALINT remains a failed essay . -The Gnome (talk) 08:31, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:12, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I don't find the two pieces in The Chron to be particularly convincing. Probably fails a strict reading of WP:GNG.-KH-1 (talk) 04:51, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

The articles are about the biography's subject and conform precisely to what Wikipedia's guideline about people's notability demands. (There exists significant coverage in multiple published, secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.) What exactly did you not find "convincing"? They're specifically about Chau Nguyen. -The Gnome (talk) 10:21, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Don't know if I would call that "significant coverage".-KH-1 (talk) 00:41, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. The sources could be stronger but I'd like to see more opinions on whether what sourcing does exist establishes GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:43, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

• Keep I've gone though and added some more sources about her including her winning an Emmy, her work with the Women's Center, and multiple interviews as a social work expert. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 01:34, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
• Keep, the two Houston Chronicle stories are sufficient to establish notability, but I will note that interviews are considered to be primary sources and are therefore not sources that will show notability, no matter how prestigious the interviewing organization. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:53, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

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.