Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qui 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 of the debate was Keep. (aeropagitica) 00:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Qui Nguyen

Prodded, deprodded, prod restored in violation of prod guidelines. Moving here as contested. He's "the first Vietnamese American playwright to be produced Off-Broadway". NickelShoe 00:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no real assertion of notability. Royboy crashfan 00:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Big on talk, short on details. Does not meet WP:BIO#People_still_alive. Monkeyman^(talk) 00:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. Mushroom (Talk) 00:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article started out as a copyvio, but the author has been working on it steadily for the past day. Previous versions show greater notability, as does Google. He appears to be relatively active in the NYC theatre scene and has won at least one award and received at least one fellowship. Although the article needs a little help, its subject appears to be notable. Seqsea (talk) 00:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per this book; the article itself remains less than convincing. If the details in the old article were verified, that would be much better. Melchoir 01:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough references in NYC theatrical press, over several years, to suggest notability. Monicasdude 01:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Enough indications that quite possibly notable. Author is in process of working on article, let's give him/her a chance to improve it. Martinp 03:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough verifiable evidence to make him notable for mine. Capitalistroadster 05:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per Seqsea. Google provides some interesting sources which could be cited in the article. Jude(talk,contribs) 07:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable enough. -- Samir T C 07:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep looks notable and verifiable. --Ter e nc e Ong 08:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a verifiable claim to notability. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 08:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable playwright, though as mentioned above the sources found on google should be added --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 12:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. -- Alpha269 15:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand, per above. --AaronS 16:54, 8 March 2006 (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.