Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Nguyễn Xuân Minh (Wikipedian)

281:. That's all my reasons to keep this article in this encyclopedia. For many that supported delete they either think Vietnamese people is not important or have nonsense reasons. However i will sum up all the points to the main points that express all of my strongly belief that this person is "absolutely" need to be keep. I have provided enough sources to prove the notability of the person if you can't prove those sources are unreliable then you have no reason to say this person is not notability. Plus the majority of articles in any Knowledge (XXG) are like some communes and villages that barely have any info in it and a lot of amateur sports players, writers, actors, actress, artist, local politician, random people who mentioned by the news like one... I can give infinite of names of people who will be forget in few years and then new people will replace them. I'm pretty sure for the most part, after their few years of fame went by 1066:

reasonable proofs to prove me wrong. I know that you have hatred or maybe just unfavor toward me due to fact that i overturn your speedy deletion, which is pretty shame as a sysop (i wouldn't be ashamed if i was you, everyone made mistake, no one is perfect). I know you're not going to admit it but well in your heart just know don't let the hatred harm your personality. You vote delete because you hate me or because you really think it does deserve it? I'm fine with whatever but well i'm sure you just want the best for Knowledge (XXG), and have a lot of trusted from many people otherwise you can't be a sysop. (i want the best for Knowledge (XXG) too)My point is don't let a issue turn you turn good to bad. Well after all i never admit that i'm 100% right nor i ever said that anyone need to listen to me. I did everything as what i believe in and won't ever give up until someone prove...

542:, was created by a member which i'm guessing is not a Vietnamese Wikipedian. In link number 1 of User Thincat, clearly say that's the only article until main page was created by Minh in October 2003 then there were more created articles after the main page was created. So basically the created of the main page marked the official birth of Vietnamese Knowledge (XXG). You can simply understand Vietnamese Knowledge (XXG) was initially open in December 2002 then (got abandoned until October 2003) but was not officially open until October 2003. And i do agree with Thincat, the correspond article got deleted in Vietnamese Knowledge (XXG) has nothing to do with this debate(despite the fact that i have explained why). Just forget about it and look at the reality and current time and reasonable reasons. 580:

community opinion. There were just coincidence that many jealous people around at that time of voting taken place. Wanting to take a fair vote? Put it on the notice on the main page of Vietnamese Knowledge (XXG) and wait until we got like 40 or 50 votes just about the same amount of votes for many recently sysop voting (this is more important than the sysop voting as my opinion). If the majority voted delete then i will agree with you that the Vietnamese community doesn't accept this article but it has nothing to do English community though (i don't think the majority will vote delete anyway). We are like the 2 different worlds here with different ideas, opinions.

1039:

like organizing stuffs, make rules, become a symbol head of Vietnamese Knowledge (XXG) on news... (because of this many new members registered so therefore further improve Vietnamese Knowledge (XXG) better) Without him Vietnamese Knowledge (XXG) won't be as decent as we are right now. I can assure you that Minh contribute more than Brion guy including the fact he didn't get pay a single cent. Again we are not comparing who contribute better than whom. Even if Minh contribute less than Brion guy so what? What made him notability is he is a founder of Vietnamese Knowledge (XXG), despite the fact that he didn't make the first edit but he is considered by

803:

the "first" article in Vietnamese Knowledge (XXG). He barely did anything (just look at the 135 edits he did, there are as well thousands of Vietnamese Wikidians are having more contributing). To me writing the first article in Vietnamese Knowledge (XXG) is nothing significant, it's just like any of other articles. The one that significant is the one who contribute a lot since its birth, created main page (personally i think creating the main page is the same as founding it, it was like dead before the main page was created anyway), building stuffs which i don't know in details and first sysop, bureaucrat, checkuser and many more...

1595:.(how many times i need to confirm my intention as a peacefully contributor who wants to fight for the right?) I'm welcome everyone to debate it's up to them whether or not they respond, i'm always ready to listen and change if they can prove me wrong as i said a billion times (i know i exaggerated it). "it's on you", yea it is, i have been fighting this for a long time now with a large amount of time being consumed by discussion mainly by me. I think i can endure the rest, probably this discussion will end in a week or 2 at max. When i said i will fight to the end that's mean i will. 77:. Normally I think it's much better to not take into account the request ofthe subject of an article, but I consider this a special situation where the notability is so borderline and the subject's reasons for requesting deletion so reasonable, that I consider it a justifiable occasion & I think that goes for a redirect also. In the circumstances, I think having either would amount to harassing the subject. I'm going to courtesy blank the AfD also in a day or so. I'll leave it up to some other admin to consider courtesy blanking the deletion review. 1714:. Contribution to Knowledge (XXG) should never be counted as grounds for notability alone, nor should project-internal "achievements" such as being the youngest sysop, the first sysop on project X, or whatever else; even mentioning such pieces of trivia reeks of project-internal navel gazing. One or two news reports mentioning this person in the context of "who are the people behind..." reports doesn't constitute significant coverage of the person as a subject in its own right; it's still basically just coverage of the project. 902:

trusted from people nor did he accomplish anything and even if he did it's because the help of others. See that? That's how a great person is, I'm really respect and admire those people. And yea you can as well do as what George Washington wish by not give him any credits? Go ahead and merge his article into United States article. In this situation it's exactly the same thing. A great person doesn't want to admit or receive credits for what they did but someone else will acknowledge it for them. I will the one who do that.

957:

Since there are no rule about subject's opinion should be considered to determine whether or not it should be delete so therefore your reasons is invalid. Plus here is a key point, he did in fact hint that other people can decide and do whatever is right about his article, he doesn't care but I DO. As my perspective my examples are totally relevant. Albert Einstein is OF COURSE a lot a lot more famous than him, Minh, but so what? We are not comparing their notability. The question is

290:

will simply be remember always by the readers who wonder who is the founder of Vietnamese Knowledge (XXG). So hundreds years or even thousands the name will live on forever. Don't underestimate the significant of other language version of Knowledge (XXG). No one can argue that Jimmy Wales is notable simply because he founded English Knowledge (XXG). It should hold the same thing for other founders of any other version of Knowledge (XXG). If this person should be delete then so do

1082:

projects, less than 18 years old, or for sure of one of the youngest. Plus his sysop role also reflect a remarkable accomplishment too, at the age of 16.(i know there some sysop that became sysops at age of 16). In term of that, Minh is maybe better than Jimmy. They are not quite relevant, anyway just an example of some accomplish that most people can't do, we should not compare them anyway.

31: 2452:

is satisfied by those two publications. Besides, two articles don't necessarily mean that a person is notable, but those points are brought up above already, and it is clear to me that there are different opinions there and different readings of our guidelines. I choose to fall on one side, and Hobit, I hope you enjoy the view from yours. I'll wave at you if you look my way. Best,

1034:, we are looking at whether or not they are notability enough. Plus your point can cause many people to believe that you have some problems with Wikipedian despite the fact that you are one of them yourself. So if they accomplish something then it's because that they are Wikipedians they can't have an article here?? Don't try to compare User:Brion to Minh. There is a 1288:. You should not look at the quantity (like how many notable things they did) but look at how much it's going to impact mankind in any part of the world. As i explained in details above, Vietnamese Knowledge (XXG) is going to have a profound lasting impact in the world especially in a country, where Knowledge (XXG) is an only source, like Vietnam. 630:? If sysop voting can be notice at the front page so does the debate. By the way, this proposition is for Vietnamese Knowledge (XXG) not English Knowledge (XXG), or anyone can do it if they can. In general, the more people vote = more opinions = more ideas = reflect the whole not minority = the more reliable and neutral of the issue. 2397:

I'd claim you are fundamentally misunderstanding what notability is on Knowledge (XXG). "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." There are a

1038:

between a translator and a founder. You think all you do is translate then boom, a miracle came out then here you go with a new version of Knowledge (XXG) (sounds like fairy tale to me, this is reality). I don't know details about the process but i know for sure it involves more than just translating

253:

Although the average English language Wikipedian (such as yours truly) is far from notable, this pioneering Vietnamese language Wikipedian has received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources as listed in the article, and is therefore notable. Google Translate helped me read the gist of

876:

NO? Did he directly say he doesn't want to have an article here? He obviously said this is vote for nor against it? Read his words carefully please. I'm guessing you guys have no idea how the thinking of some humble and great people work. They will never admit that they did anything good nor do they

621:

So many people can notice and take a vote on it and i didn't say it has to be merit or anything special it's just a notice. You can do whatever you want as long as it reached at least 40 votes then i will believe that's what the Vietnamese community wants. Otherwise the few votes don't say anything.

2451:

I'll admit that my Vietnamese is a bit rusty, but the Vietbao article isn't very long, and in both cases it is difficult (for me) to establish the notability and importance of those publications. I'll take the subject's word for it, that they are not so important that the GNG or any other guideline

2179:

Looking through the discussion I see several people saying he does not meet the notability guidelines, even though he seems to meet the letter of it. I suspect the underlying reason behind is that this concerns a wikipedian, one of us. Although not codified in policy as far as I know, Jimbo said in

1734:

of Vietnamese Knowledge (XXG)(he is considered by many to be the most important role), Read many discussion above for details of how much Vietnamese Knowledge (XXG) impact Vietnam society. As i said a billion time (i know i exaggerated it), as long as Knowledge (XXG) still live his name will always

1730:"who are the people behind..." is just one of the news he is being mentioned, there are many interviewed and news talk specific about him not just a coverage of the project. Let me remind you he is not notably because he is the youngest of any kind. He is notably because he is considered one of the 1065:

At my bottom line, i feel like you're pretty stubborn. Never admit that you are wrong. I'm not saying i'm right or anything. I could be wrong despite the fact that i believe i'm right but i don't deny the possibilities of me being wrong. I'm glad and ready to know when to stop if someone has enough

956:

No i doubt it. This is the only sentence that has anything to do with his opinion about whether or not to delete "But I hope you understand if I personally disagree." He disagreed doesn't mean he wants his article to be delete, this simply means he doesn't want to admit that he accomplish anything.

802:

cases then it will be really hard since we have like no source outside of Knowledge (XXG). Plus Dung seems to have intense problems with having any kind Wikipedians article on Knowledge (XXG) anyway. And for Joakim case, personally i think he doesn't contribute much at all despite the fact he wrote

574:

so what? Their opinions are nothing more than any other members. Just because they can read Vietnamese doesn't mean they are absolutely correct, as i said many time they are just simply jealous of someone has an article on Knowledge (XXG) and they don't (my opinion of course). Prove to me that they

354:

article, rather than in a free-standing biography. The point being made by The Bushranger is that you should not assume that those who disagree with you think that Vietnamese topics are "not important" or that their arguments are "nonsense". Those are not considered persuasive arguments here. I

1534:

they vote "delete" because they can't argue with me with reasonable discussion which proven to me and everyone that they have short temper and are not trusted since their point of view can be easily distracted by other factor such as unable to provide rational discussion and started hatred toward

901:

Let me give you an great example of someone you will know for sure. I remember watching a document about George Washington. He was saying something to someone else that promoted him to something important i can't remember. He, George Washington, said something like he doesn't deserve the honor or

520:

shows the initial admin appointments. So, the external sources seem to be confirmed by information on the Vietnamese Knowledge (XXG) itself; are not merely "fluff pieces"; and meet the general notability guidelines. Even if the corresponding article was deleted on the Vietnamese Knowledge (XXG),

289:

more notable than most people that have articles in here. As long as Knowledge (XXG) still there, which i don't think Knowledge (XXG) will ever die anyway. Knowledge (XXG) will become the greatest encyclopedia in mankind. So therefore Minh's contribution as a founder of Vietnamese Knowledge (XXG)

1152:

I think you should be the one that reconsider about your redirect vote Seb. This person is not notable just because only one event. He was interviewed and mentioned by the biggest Vietnamese news many times not once. Don't forget that his credit as a founder of Vietnamese Knowledge (XXG) will be

1081:

Oh yea forgot to mention that Jimmy is overall a lot notable then Minh but well there are few things Minh has more impact than Jimmy. To us, Vietnamese people (not including jealous people), Minh of course play a more significant role than Jimmy. Minh is the youngest bureaucrats ever in any Wiki

2371:

Could you explain that? First of all, note that ANYBIO defers to the GNG. Secondly the GNG does indicate that multiple reliable sources is enough. We've got that. Articles in major newspapers are generally regarded as outstanding RSes. And these are solely on the topic of the subject. The

1043:

people that he is a founder or one of the founders. I think many years from now hundreds or thousands years as long as Knowledge (XXG) still alive (i don't think Knowledge (XXG) is going to die anyway so to me it will live on FOREVER) his name, Minh, will always be remember as one a founder of

579:

is an easiest excuse for someone to vote delete on any articles, anyone can use that excuse to vote delete for any articles that they don't like even though the articles have undeniable reliable sources. Plus let me remind you there are only about 10 members voted, it doesn't reflect the whole

1447:

Did i? Don't accuse me of accusing people when you didn't understand my words. I think i have a right to express my opinion on other people that i feel like they don't have reasonable reasons. You are dictator? Who give you power to tell me to step back? And i think you should find some other

556:

I note that it had been deleted in vi.wiki to show that the people who can read Vietnamese, who can understand the significance of the given sources, had determined that the person is still not notable enough. BTW, the author had also insisted on creating an article about me, the other early

1539:

Tell you what even if i lose in this debate but to me i have won a victory to proven a rotten system that have too many people around who can't provide the rational reasons nor can they back up their statement, they just vote then ran away and avoid responsibility. They have power to vote,

349:

I agree with you that this article should be kept, Trongphu, and I admire your passion. However, reasonable people may disagree about this article. I notice on your own talk page that the subject of the article himself has expressed the opinion that he should be discussed in our

1283:

So what? It has nothing to do with the notability of the person. Plus he is also a sysop and bureaucrat of vi.wiktionary and played somewhat important role in other wiki projects. By using your logic i can say Jimmy is not notable since "He hasn't done anything notable outside of

1778:"Youngest age for any bureaucrat" and "one of the youngest sysops" are not the reason why he is notable. He is famous because he is a founder of Vietnamese Knowledge (XXG). Read many discussion above for details of how much Vietnamese Knowledge (XXG) impact Vietnam society. 518: 2225:

per the availability of reliable sources, and it would be functional to include it, along with the references, in the Vietnamese Knowledge (XXG) article. I stand by my "keep" rationale above that this topic's notability qualifies its inclusion as a stand-alone article.

1392:

here is is this person notable enough? If no one can prove the sources are unreliable then the result is pretty obvious but then people just made up a lot of other reasons have nothing to do with the article itself. Please think and read carefully before you guys

626:, that's what you did to sysop voting, put it on the front page didn't you or someone else did?(i'm sure someone did) I can ask you the same question: What's so special about this the sysop voting that merits placement on the front page? Isn't sysop suppose to be 2283:- He is marginally notable at best and in his own opinion does not deserve an article. While the subjects opinion is not normally a criteria, when we have a marginally notable person who states they do not want an article, I see no reason to not honor that. 1925:

I can use the same logic as you did to prove any articles not notable. "just because Jimmy Wales was a force in creating the English Knowledge (XXG), does not make him notable". (i know he created the whole system but technically he only involves in English

942:(though to be fair, he also mentions that he does not think his opinion is relevant). As I said, I think the subject's opinion should be taken into account in cases of borderline notability. The examples you suggested would not be considered borderline. 2038:. I'd say redirect, but seriously.... who is going to actually look it up? Having sources doesn't mean notable. I have gone through every criteria we have for notability of individuals, and I can't find anything that the subject qualifies under. 185: 1850:

claim of notability, it would be mentioned in the article about that subject. Still, there is no reason why he could not be mentioned there. Certainly, the subject doesn't pass the bar for a stand-alone article (as he even admits himself).

994:): No matter how many news sources cover the subject, being a Wikipedian just isn't a valid claim to notability for a biography. There are many people who have translated MediaWiki interfaces into many languages, even our esteemed tech guru 2099:, but common sense would seem to suggest that what little content we have on him would be better covered in the wider article since it all relates to that. If he becomes notable for something else in the future we can split back out then. 1760:. Not even close to an encyclopedically notable biography in my view. "Youngest age for any bureaucrat" and "one of the youngest sysops" are simply not claims of notability for any biography regardless of which wiki he might work on. 2243:

To split hairs a bit, the original target of that rule seems to have been the kind of content that we now house at the Meta-Wiki. At the time, the Phase II software didn't support a Knowledge (XXG): namespace, and talk pages were

1657:

You nomination is being overturned and that is a strong proof of saying your point of view is wrong, consider by many. And this is a debate. I think you have to provide a legit reason not just random reason according to your bias

1504:

It's not up to you to decide whether a !voter's rationale is valid or not and I suggest you knock it off. All you're doing is making other users !vote "delete" in an attempt to spite you for calling names and belittling opinions.

453:

and always has been supporting for deletion ever since i first started in Vietnamese Knowledge (XXG). As far as my opinion goes, this person has some kind of intense problem with the article i wrote has its place on the Knowledge

850:. However, in cases of borderline notability in which the subject of the article has voiced an opinion that they prefer not to have an article (as is the case here), that person's opinion should be taken into account. Call it 513:

says "Vietnamese Knowledge (XXG) initially went online in November 2002". This in itself would be a matter for editing rather than deletion unless it transpired that some of the underlying information was unreliable. However

1190:

I've got to say that I don't think WP:BLP1E applies here. Founding something large and continuing to work on it is rarely a "single event". The question is coverage and he seems to have it (just barely, but still).

423:- this article had been through AfD in the Vietnamese version of Knowledge (XXG) and was deleted. There are 2 fluff pieces in the Vietnamese press several years ago that basically came from the same source. 1735:

be remember by the Vietnamese people who wonder he found the Vietnamese Knowledge (XXG). (i don't think Knowledge (XXG) is going to die anyway so his name will live on forever). This point proved that he is

179: 1992:

duh? Of course most Wikipedians are not notable enough to have an article here but this person is not part of the "most Wikipedians". Did you even bother to read the argument and info before you vote?

2329:

Could you explain that? On the face of it we've got solid reliable sources--two newspaper articles solely on the subject. I'm curious why you don't find them reliable or enough for the GNG.

2184:: "The topic of Knowledge (XXG) articles should always look outward, not inward at the Knowledge (XXG) itself". I fully agree with this sentiment and taking also into account the opinion from 2221:, it would be prudent to also merge information from this article "Nguyễn Xuân Minh (Wikipedian)" into the Vietnamese Knowledge (XXG) article. The topic of this article does indeed pass 119: 114: 123: 1048:

of the articles about other people. I'm confident to say for the majority of the articles about other people, in 10 years at max no one will remember about them and what they did.

1030:

is a Wikipedian too, you can as well delete him. Wait i know what you're going to say. Jimmy Wales is more famous? Duh of course he is, i think so too. Again let me reminding you

106: 1369:

article has nothing to do with the founder, Minh, at all." Perhaps you mis-typed? If not, then you are saying the person is not notable even for Vietnamese Knowledge (XXG). --

146: 2386:

Because verifiability and notability are two separate things. Just because something has reliable sources doesn't automatically mean it's notable and worthy of an article.

1907:. He fails to meet any of the Notability guidelines as far as i can see. Just because he was a force in creating the Vietnamese Knowledge (XXG), does not make him notable. 1693:

goes. As Minh himself has suggested merging the content to the article about vi.wiki, it seems the best compromise that should make everyone equally (un)happy. Cheers.

695: 217: 1940:

Jimmy Wales created multiple sites, he formed the Wikimedia Foundation. He did the ground work for almost every Wiki on the net. Not only that, he also has collected

718: 40: 756:, I didn't found the project in any way. I certainly helped, but then in that case, several key individuals from the next couple years would deserve articles too. 557:

Vietnamese Wikipedian. However, my case is even more clear-cut since I have not given any interviews and thus there are no verifiable sources talking about me.

1636:

Why would you say that it's "not 'a' valid reason". If I was the one who nominated it for speedy citing a criteria of "unremarkable person" then I think it's

200: 167: 1101:. After ensuring that I was reading a Knowledge (XXG) article and not a PR piece....sorry, I'm not seeing the significant coverage by reliable sources. 2127: 1177:

up again — you give one source that talks about his fame (that one source has been put online by two webpages), and that's what you call "several"?

858:, or whatever you wish, but a brief mention in the Vietnamese Knowledge (XXG) article just seems to me to be the correct amount of coverage here. 2496: 2461: 2446: 2427: 2392: 2381: 2366: 2338: 2324: 2307: 2290: 2271: 2235: 2205: 2171: 2139: 2108: 2083: 2058: 2044: 2030: 2001: 1979: 1953: 1935: 1916: 1887: 1858: 1826: 1808: 1787: 1769: 1748: 1721: 1706: 1667: 1652: 1625: 1604: 1586: 1557: 1525: 1499: 1481: 1461: 1442: 1427: 1402: 1378: 1352: 1326: 1297: 1274: 1250: 1238: 1200: 1181: 1162: 1139: 1127: 1110: 1091: 1075: 1057: 1017: 974: 951: 933: 915: 890: 867: 826: 812: 787: 733: 710: 680: 639: 605: 589: 566: 551: 530: 495: 483: 463: 432: 415: 384: 370: 341: 327: 303: 269: 244: 161: 88: 2124: 920:

Plus there is no such rule that say you can't write about someone else that obviously notable enough when that person doesn't want to. Example

768:

was probably the most prolific non-sysop contributor. You won't find many sources for them, though, because those papers kept the focus on me,

1878:

for now. Particularly in light of the comments made by the subject of the article, who seems to be a very intelligent and reasonable person.

332:

Are you trying to tell me that people want to delete this because they have good faith? Or what do you mean exactly? I have a good faith too.

1689:, leaving content in the history to be merged. I'm really on the fence as to keep/delete, and I see how this is a debatable case as far as 1817:

Please give me evidence that it can not expand into a notable biographic profile? Don't try to predict future since you are not a prophecy.

238: 157: 752:" is still a stub. The 2–3 Vietnamese journalists who tried to interview me never seemed to get it – or take "no" as an answer – but as I 2248:

of actual articles, so we had to be careful not to blur the lines between the encyclopedia and project-related discussions. Notice how "

1718: 375:

Let just say they have a good faith but still i feel like their reasons are not strong enough nor does it support their delete decision.

207: 17: 2529: 2432:

Thank you, I have taken "your" notability guidelines under advisement. I choose instead to use well-established guidelines such as

745: 817:

Not meant to insult Joakim or anything but well to me he is nothing more than any other normal users. (again it's just my opinion)

509:

says "He started to contribute to Knowledge (XXG) in early 2003 but was not an official member until as 13 October, 2003" whereas

2410:

check your opinion of what is "notable" and "not notable" at the door and use our notability guidelines instead. Of course they

2245: 1855: 2166: 1581: 1520: 1640:

much obvious that what my rationale is. Being a Knowledge (XXG) user doesn't make this user notable enough. And this is not a

1715: 799: 761: 654: 173: 110: 2511: 1739:

more notable than the majority of people who have an article which will be forgotten in like few years or 10 years max.

877:

care if they are famous. Does that change the fact that they should deserve the honors? No it doesn't change anything.

765: 753: 662: 65: 46: 2181: 881:. You can't force them to say yes so we can have an article about them in here. They are just too humble to say yes. 2231: 2135: 658: 506: 479: 102: 94: 1490:

Another not valid reason, i think your speedy is being overturned which proven that your reason is invalid by now.

748:. As I've already related to Trongphu, I personally don't think I'm notable enough for my own article, seeing as " 596:

That's a ridiculous proposition. What's so special about this AfD entry that merits placement on the front page?

2266: 1645: 1474: 782: 675: 2510:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a

2077: 321: 233: 64:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a

1153:

lasting for hundreds or thousands of years as long as Knowledge (XXG) still alive. (read above for more info).

1804: 2484: 2218: 2092: 2069: 1875: 1839: 1686: 1366: 1362: 1358: 1336: 1314: 1310: 1261: 1219: 991: 839: 749: 510: 403: 351: 2492: 1438:

I think you need to step back. Don't accuse people of "not thinking" just because they disagree with you.

1361:

makes no mention of him? This says that the person is not notable. Perhaps it can be fixed by improving

2193: 2227: 2131: 1883: 1106: 475: 2437: 2315:

for lack of notability and coverage in reliable sources. BTW, subject seems like a great contributor.

924:

said he doesn't want to have an article on Knowledge (XXG) so is that mean no one can write about him?

2303: 2104: 1974: 1852: 622:

Plus to me this is not simply just an AfD, this is an important debate voting, just as important as

2160: 2073: 1623: 1609:— Bill william compton's reason for voting for Delete is simply nonsensical. Seriously, what does " 1575: 1514: 1423: 1374: 1322: 1236: 1171: 1012: 363: 317: 262: 228: 225: 193: 2350: 1900: 1563: 2362: 1997: 1949: 1931: 1912: 1822: 1800: 1783: 1744: 1701: 1663: 1600: 1553: 1495: 1457: 1398: 1348: 1293: 1158: 1087: 1071: 1053: 970: 929: 911: 886: 822: 808: 635: 585: 547: 459: 380: 337: 299: 2253: 2189: 2117: 1266: 1244: 1133: 995: 855: 489: 2249: 2488: 2024: 729: 706: 540: 539:

The first article ever created in Vietnamese Knowledge (XXG) is the Internet Society article,

526: 411: 58:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.

2457: 2320: 2287: 2201: 2121: 1879: 1439: 1271: 1247: 1178: 1136: 1102: 947: 863: 492: 2433: 2415: 2403: 2399: 2354: 2222: 2148: 2096: 1904: 1896: 1871: 1690: 1415: 938:

To answer your first question, yes, the subject said they did not think they were notable,

851: 843: 313: 2423: 2377: 2372:

longer I'm here the more I think people don't quite understand our inclusion guidelines.

2334: 2299: 2256:

is today. But thanks for posting that link; I hadn't encountered the principles before. –

2100: 2054: 1968: 1765: 1196: 1123: 921: 847: 2151:, not notable as an early Knowledge (XXG) editor for one of the hundreds of Wikipedias. 1530:

I think i have a freedom to express my opinion to whether or not they are rational. And

1388:

Why so many people just keep looking at other random reasons to try to delete this? The

2441: 2387: 2153: 2039: 1614: 1568: 1507: 1419: 1370: 1318: 1227: 1218:

for my liking, the subject is sufficiently notable for Knowledge (XXG) as a founder of

1007: 356: 255: 2523: 2358: 2262: 1993: 1945: 1927: 1908: 1874:

by a hair, it seems to make more sense to redirect and work on the article about the

1818: 1779: 1740: 1694: 1659: 1596: 1549: 1491: 1453: 1394: 1344: 1289: 1154: 1083: 1067: 1049: 966: 925: 907: 882: 818: 804: 778: 671: 631: 601: 581: 562: 543: 455: 428: 376: 333: 295: 84: 2018: 2014: 1799:

per WP:BLP1E, no evidence this can be expanded in an notable biographic profile. --

1044:

Vietnamese Knowledge (XXG), my point right here can prove that he will be remember

999: 725: 702: 522: 407: 1357:

The person is "known for contributing to the Vietnamese Knowledge (XXG)", and yet

1313:. This article is a very weak biography. Much more content should be present at 140: 1452:

proofs to back up your vote otherwise i don't think it will be valid enough here.

515: 2453: 2316: 2284: 1118:

Looks like two solid sources. Barely passes WP:N, but passes it does seem to.

1027: 943: 859: 2419: 2373: 2330: 2130:

also qualifies notability. Perhaps there are more reliable sources available.

2050: 1761: 1192: 1119: 769: 277:

for whom that plan to vote deletion you guys should read this earlier discuss

1003: 2414:

just guidelines and so a matter of personal opinion should enter in a bit (

2017:. Even Mxn himself says that he doesn't deserve a Knowledge (XXG) article.— 355:

too advise you to assume good faith of other editors, and I wish you well.

1414:

Reliable sources alone are not sufficient for a stand alone article. See

961:, answer me that question? That's what we should be really getting at not 2353:. Two newspaper articles does not make him notable enough to qualify for 2257: 2185: 1870:

relevant content. While one could make the argument that he may meet the

1339:

article has nothing to do with the founder, Minh, at all. Weak biography

795: 773: 757: 666: 597: 558: 424: 79: 1535:

someone has more reasonable ideas, also can be called bias. Listen now

906:

because it doesn't determine the notability of the person, NOT AT ALL.

1537:

i never say i'm 100% correct but if you can't prove me wrong then...

285:

will ever remember them and what they did. To me personally Minh is

2504:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.

846:, with the debate largely falling as to whether the coverage is 904:

Again the main subject opinion should not be taken into account

2398:

number of essays that do a good job describing the issue, but

25: 1842:, although even that is slightly perverse given that article 959:

does that person notability enough to have an article on here

1941: 445:

explanations about the voting in Vietnamese Knowledge (XXG)

1270:. He hasn't done anything notable outside of vi.wikipedia. 653:

I didn't create the main page, I just rewrote it. In fact,

1593:

This is a discussion place where everyone is free to talk

1002:), who has considerable media coverage, is redirected to 1944:. You cannot say that the logic i used fits with Jimmy. 1566:, and if you don't want to take my advice, it's on you. 441:

Don't get fooled by the result of that voting, i got my

939: 446: 278: 136: 132: 128: 1644:, so I'm not going to fall in any escalating argument. 192: 218:

Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review/Log/2011 September 25

2049:WP:N? Certainly looks to meet the letter of that. 206: 1846:; one would have thought if a subject's has only 663:Talk:Vietnamese Knowledge (XXG)#Date of foundation 661:had also edited by the time I found the site. See 1343:a valid reason to say this person is not notable. 1317:before the subject has a stand alone article. -- 68:). No further edits should be made to this page. 2514:). No further edits should be made to this page. 665:for all the dates and details I could dig up. – 1473:– As an original person who requested a speedy. 2095:. Technically he possibly meets the letter of 764:, and I were the first trio of sysops, while 696:list of Internet-related deletion discussions 8: 2217:- In the event the article is redirected to 1611:As an original person who requested a speedy 842:. The subject appears to meet the letter of 717:Note: This debate has been included in the 694:Note: This debate has been included in the 1335:Another irrelevant reason to redirect. The 719:list of People-related deletion discussions 2196:I think it best to redirect this article. 716: 693: 744:This isn't a vote for or against, due to 294:of other articles should end up the same. 1967:- not notable, like most Wikipedians. -- 45:For an explanation of the process, see 517:explains the discrepancy in dates and 1032:we are not comparing their notability 879:I want to give them what they deserve 18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion 7: 2440:, which this person does not pass. 1844:doesn't actually mention him at all 449:. By the way, this person has been 2072:, merging any relevant content. - 572:the people who can read Vietnamese 41:deletion review on 2011 October 10 24: 1591:Did i ever say this is a battle? 1214:While there is a little too much 29: 1544:. Their votes are hatred votes 47:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review 1542:Power goes with responsibility 575:have a neutral view of point. 1: 507:Nguyễn Xuân Minh (Wikipedian) 103:Nguyễn Xuân Minh (Wikipedian) 95:Nguyễn Xuân Minh (Wikipedian) 1216:blowing sunshine up his a*** 657:wrote the first article and 505:At DRV I had doubts because 2497:18:45, 7 October 2011 (UTC) 2462:21:39, 8 October 2011 (UTC) 2447:17:55, 8 October 2011 (UTC) 2428:17:20, 8 October 2011 (UTC) 2393:16:23, 8 October 2011 (UTC) 2382:14:19, 8 October 2011 (UTC) 2367:01:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC) 2339:22:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC) 2325:17:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC) 2308:15:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC) 2291:12:41, 7 October 2011 (UTC) 2272:18:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC) 2236:16:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC) 2206:12:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC) 2172:17:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC) 2140:16:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC) 2109:17:38, 5 October 2011 (UTC) 2084:22:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC) 2059:09:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC) 2045:22:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC) 2031:21:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC) 2002:20:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC) 1980:18:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC) 1954:22:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC) 1936:20:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC) 1917:18:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC) 1888:16:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC) 1859:12:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC) 1827:20:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC) 1809:10:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC) 1788:20:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC) 1770:07:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC) 1749:20:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC) 1722:06:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC) 1707:05:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC) 1668:20:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC) 1653:10:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC) 1626:04:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC) 1605:04:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC) 1587:03:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC) 1558:03:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC) 1526:02:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC) 1500:02:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC) 1482:02:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC) 1462:02:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC) 1443:01:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC) 1428:05:45, 4 October 2011 (UTC) 1403:01:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC) 1379:05:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC) 1353:01:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC) 1327:01:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC) 1298:01:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC) 1275:01:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC) 1251:01:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC) 1239:01:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC) 1201:15:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC) 1182:01:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC) 1163:01:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC) 1140:01:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC) 1128:01:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC) 1111:01:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC) 1092:23:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC) 1076:23:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC) 1058:23:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC) 1018:15:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC) 975:22:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC) 952:05:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC) 934:04:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC) 916:04:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC) 891:04:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC) 868:01:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC) 827:04:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC) 813:22:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC) 788:21:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC) 734:19:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC) 711:19:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC) 681:21:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC) 640:00:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC) 606:23:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC) 590:22:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC) 567:21:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC) 552:16:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC) 531:15:51, 2 October 2011 (UTC) 521:that does not matter here. 496:01:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC) 484:13:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC) 464:14:16, 2 October 2011 (UTC) 433:10:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC) 416:07:37, 2 October 2011 (UTC) 385:14:16, 2 October 2011 (UTC) 371:06:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC) 342:05:48, 2 October 2011 (UTC) 328:05:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC) 304:05:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC) 270:03:38, 2 October 2011 (UTC) 245:03:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC) 89:02:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC) 2546: 2485:Vietnamese Knowledge (XXG) 2219:Vietnamese Knowledge (XXG) 2093:Vietnamese Knowledge (XXG) 2070:Vietnamese Knowledge (XXG) 1876:Vietnamese Knowledge (XXG) 1840:Vietnamese Knowledge (XXG) 1687:Vietnamese Knowledge (XXG) 1367:Vietnamese Knowledge (XXG) 1363:Vietnamese Knowledge (XXG) 1359:Vietnamese Knowledge (XXG) 1337:Vietnamese Knowledge (XXG) 1315:Vietnamese Knowledge (XXG) 1311:Vietnamese Knowledge (XXG) 1262:Vietnamese Knowledge (XXG) 1220:Vietnamese Knowledge (XXG) 992:Vietnamese Knowledge (XXG) 840:Vietnamese Knowledge (XXG) 750:Vietnamese Knowledge (XXG) 511:Vietnamese Knowledge (XXG) 404:Vietnamese Knowledge (XXG) 352:Vietnamese Knowledge (XXG) 2406:. Basically, you should 2530:Pages at deletion review 2507:Please do not modify it. 1440:Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 1272:Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 1248:Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 1179:Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 1137:Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 493:Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 61:Please do not modify it. 2182:statement of principles 2402:is pretty solid as is 2126:. To a lesser extent, 1648:— Bill william compton 1477:— Bill william compton 940:here on your talk page 2254:Knowledge (XXG):About 2252:" was basically what 1990:like most Wikipedians 1167:No, dude. I just put 2298:to his notability. 963:other circumstances 312:Please remember to 216:Listing on AfD per 1260:to and mention in 1222:who has attracted 577:Not notable enough 73:The result was 2296:merge or redirect 2270: 1226:media attention. 990:( or redirect to 786: 736: 722: 713: 699: 679: 314:assume good faith 53: 52: 39:was subject to a 2537: 2509: 2444: 2390: 2260: 2228:Northamerica1000 2169: 2163: 2156: 2132:Northamerica1000 2080: 2042: 2027: 2021: 1977: 1971: 1699: 1650: 1649: 1619: 1584: 1578: 1571: 1523: 1517: 1510: 1479: 1478: 1232: 1176: 1170: 1046:longer than most 1015: 1010: 776: 723: 700: 669: 476:Earth Wikipedian 368: 366:Let's discuss it 360: 324: 267: 265:Let's discuss it 259: 241: 236: 231: 211: 210: 196: 144: 126: 63: 33: 32: 26: 2545: 2544: 2540: 2539: 2538: 2536: 2535: 2534: 2520: 2519: 2518: 2512:deletion review 2505: 2487:, not notable. 2442: 2388: 2250:Knowledge (XXG) 2167: 2161: 2154: 2082: 2078: 2040: 2025: 2019: 1975: 1969: 1942:numerous awards 1695: 1647: 1646: 1617: 1582: 1576: 1569: 1548:rational votes. 1521: 1515: 1508: 1476: 1475: 1230: 1174: 1168: 1026:Oh yea i think 1013: 1008: 922:Albert Einstein 766:Mekong Bluesman 655:Joakim Löfkvist 364: 358: 326: 322: 263: 257: 254:two articles. 239: 234: 229: 153: 117: 101: 98: 66:deletion review 59: 37:This discussion 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 2543: 2541: 2533: 2532: 2522: 2521: 2517: 2516: 2500: 2499: 2477: 2476: 2475: 2474: 2473: 2472: 2471: 2470: 2469: 2468: 2467: 2466: 2465: 2464: 2344: 2343: 2342: 2341: 2310: 2293: 2277: 2276: 2275: 2274: 2238: 2209: 2208: 2174: 2142: 2111: 2086: 2076: 2074:The Bushranger 2063: 2062: 2061: 2033: 2007: 2006: 2005: 2004: 1983: 1982: 1961: 1960: 1959: 1958: 1957: 1956: 1920: 1919: 1890: 1861: 1853:Black Kite (t) 1832: 1831: 1830: 1829: 1812: 1811: 1793: 1792: 1791: 1790: 1773: 1772: 1754: 1753: 1752: 1751: 1725: 1724: 1709: 1679: 1678: 1677: 1676: 1675: 1674: 1673: 1672: 1671: 1670: 1634: 1633: 1632: 1631: 1630: 1629: 1628: 1485: 1484: 1467: 1466: 1465: 1464: 1436: 1435: 1434: 1433: 1432: 1431: 1430: 1386: 1385: 1384: 1383: 1382: 1381: 1330: 1329: 1303: 1302: 1301: 1300: 1278: 1277: 1255: 1254: 1253: 1208: 1207: 1206: 1205: 1204: 1203: 1187: 1186: 1185: 1184: 1145: 1144: 1143: 1142: 1113: 1095: 1094: 1063: 1062: 1061: 1060: 1021: 1020: 984: 983: 982: 981: 980: 979: 978: 977: 918: 896: 895: 894: 893: 871: 870: 832: 831: 830: 829: 791: 790: 738: 737: 714: 691: 690: 689: 688: 687: 686: 685: 684: 683: 628:not a big deal 619: 618: 617: 616: 615: 614: 613: 612: 611: 610: 609: 608: 534: 533: 500: 499: 498: 469: 468: 467: 466: 436: 435: 418: 396: 395: 394: 393: 392: 391: 390: 389: 388: 387: 320: 318:The Bushranger 307: 306: 272: 214: 213: 150: 97: 92: 71: 70: 54: 51: 50: 44: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2542: 2531: 2528: 2527: 2525: 2515: 2513: 2508: 2502: 2501: 2498: 2494: 2490: 2486: 2482: 2479: 2478: 2463: 2459: 2455: 2450: 2449: 2448: 2445: 2439: 2435: 2431: 2430: 2429: 2425: 2421: 2417: 2413: 2409: 2405: 2401: 2396: 2395: 2394: 2391: 2385: 2384: 2383: 2379: 2375: 2370: 2369: 2368: 2364: 2360: 2356: 2352: 2348: 2347: 2346: 2345: 2340: 2336: 2332: 2328: 2327: 2326: 2322: 2318: 2314: 2311: 2309: 2305: 2301: 2297: 2294: 2292: 2289: 2286: 2282: 2279: 2278: 2273: 2268: 2264: 2259: 2255: 2251: 2247: 2242: 2239: 2237: 2233: 2229: 2224: 2220: 2216: 2213: 2212: 2211: 2210: 2207: 2203: 2199: 2195: 2191: 2187: 2183: 2178: 2175: 2173: 2170: 2165: 2164: 2158: 2157: 2150: 2146: 2143: 2141: 2137: 2133: 2129: 2125: 2122: 2119: 2115: 2112: 2110: 2106: 2102: 2098: 2094: 2090: 2087: 2085: 2081: 2079:One ping only 2075: 2071: 2067: 2064: 2060: 2056: 2052: 2048: 2047: 2046: 2043: 2037: 2034: 2032: 2028: 2022: 2016: 2012: 2009: 2008: 2003: 1999: 1995: 1991: 1987: 1986: 1985: 1984: 1981: 1978: 1972: 1966: 1963: 1962: 1955: 1951: 1947: 1943: 1939: 1938: 1937: 1933: 1929: 1924: 1923: 1922: 1921: 1918: 1914: 1910: 1906: 1902: 1898: 1894: 1891: 1889: 1885: 1881: 1877: 1873: 1869: 1865: 1862: 1860: 1857: 1854: 1849: 1845: 1841: 1837: 1834: 1833: 1828: 1824: 1820: 1816: 1815: 1814: 1813: 1810: 1806: 1802: 1801:Cameron Scott 1798: 1795: 1794: 1789: 1785: 1781: 1777: 1776: 1775: 1774: 1771: 1767: 1763: 1759: 1756: 1755: 1750: 1746: 1742: 1738: 1733: 1729: 1728: 1727: 1726: 1723: 1720: 1717: 1713: 1710: 1708: 1705: 1704: 1700: 1698: 1692: 1688: 1684: 1681: 1680: 1669: 1665: 1661: 1656: 1655: 1654: 1651: 1643: 1639: 1635: 1627: 1624: 1622: 1621: 1620: 1613:" even mean? 1612: 1608: 1607: 1606: 1602: 1598: 1594: 1590: 1589: 1588: 1585: 1580: 1579: 1573: 1572: 1565: 1562:This isn't a 1561: 1560: 1559: 1555: 1551: 1547: 1543: 1538: 1533: 1529: 1528: 1527: 1524: 1519: 1518: 1512: 1511: 1503: 1502: 1501: 1497: 1493: 1489: 1488: 1487: 1486: 1483: 1480: 1472: 1469: 1468: 1463: 1459: 1455: 1451: 1446: 1445: 1444: 1441: 1437: 1429: 1425: 1421: 1417: 1413: 1412: 1411: 1410: 1409: 1408: 1407: 1406: 1405: 1404: 1400: 1396: 1391: 1380: 1376: 1372: 1368: 1364: 1360: 1356: 1355: 1354: 1350: 1346: 1342: 1338: 1334: 1333: 1332: 1331: 1328: 1324: 1320: 1316: 1312: 1308: 1305: 1304: 1299: 1295: 1291: 1287: 1286:English wikis 1282: 1281: 1280: 1279: 1276: 1273: 1269: 1268: 1263: 1259: 1256: 1252: 1249: 1246: 1242: 1241: 1240: 1237: 1235: 1234: 1233: 1225: 1221: 1217: 1213: 1210: 1209: 1202: 1198: 1194: 1189: 1188: 1183: 1180: 1173: 1166: 1165: 1164: 1160: 1156: 1151: 1150: 1149: 1148: 1147: 1146: 1141: 1138: 1135: 1131: 1130: 1129: 1125: 1121: 1117: 1114: 1112: 1108: 1104: 1100: 1097: 1096: 1093: 1089: 1085: 1080: 1079: 1078: 1077: 1073: 1069: 1059: 1055: 1051: 1047: 1042: 1037: 1036:big different 1033: 1029: 1025: 1024: 1023: 1022: 1019: 1016: 1011: 1005: 1001: 997: 993: 989: 986: 985: 976: 972: 968: 964: 960: 955: 954: 953: 949: 945: 941: 937: 936: 935: 931: 927: 923: 919: 917: 913: 909: 905: 900: 899: 898: 897: 892: 888: 884: 880: 875: 874: 873: 872: 869: 865: 861: 857: 853: 849: 845: 841: 837: 834: 833: 828: 824: 820: 816: 815: 814: 810: 806: 801: 797: 793: 792: 789: 784: 780: 775: 771: 767: 763: 759: 755: 754:detailed here 751: 747: 743: 740: 739: 735: 731: 727: 720: 715: 712: 708: 704: 697: 692: 682: 677: 673: 668: 664: 660: 659:Vieilletortue 656: 652: 651: 650: 649: 648: 647: 646: 645: 644: 643: 642: 641: 637: 633: 629: 625: 607: 603: 599: 595: 594: 593: 592: 591: 587: 583: 578: 573: 570: 569: 568: 564: 560: 555: 554: 553: 549: 545: 541: 538: 537: 536: 535: 532: 528: 524: 519: 516: 512: 508: 504: 501: 497: 494: 491: 487: 486: 485: 481: 477: 474: 471: 470: 465: 461: 457: 452: 448: 444: 440: 439: 438: 437: 434: 430: 426: 422: 419: 417: 413: 409: 405: 401: 398: 397: 386: 382: 378: 374: 373: 372: 369: 367: 362: 361: 353: 348: 345: 344: 343: 339: 335: 331: 330: 329: 325: 323:One ping only 319: 315: 311: 310: 309: 308: 305: 301: 297: 293: 288: 284: 280: 276: 273: 271: 268: 266: 261: 260: 252: 249: 248: 247: 246: 242: 237: 232: 227: 223: 219: 209: 205: 202: 199: 195: 191: 187: 184: 181: 178: 175: 172: 169: 166: 163: 159: 156: 155:Find sources: 151: 148: 142: 138: 134: 130: 125: 121: 116: 112: 108: 104: 100: 99: 96: 93: 91: 90: 86: 82: 81: 76: 69: 67: 62: 56: 55: 48: 42: 38: 35: 28: 27: 19: 2506: 2503: 2489:Stuartyeates 2480: 2411: 2407: 2312: 2295: 2280: 2240: 2214: 2197: 2194:wp:PERMASTUB 2176: 2159: 2152: 2144: 2128:this article 2113: 2088: 2065: 2035: 2015:Navel-gazing 2010: 1989: 1964: 1892: 1867: 1866:and perhaps 1863: 1847: 1843: 1835: 1796: 1757: 1736: 1731: 1711: 1702: 1696: 1682: 1641: 1637: 1616: 1615: 1610: 1592: 1574: 1567: 1545: 1541: 1536: 1531: 1513: 1506: 1470: 1449: 1389: 1387: 1340: 1306: 1285: 1265: 1257: 1229: 1228: 1223: 1215: 1211: 1115: 1098: 1064: 1045: 1040: 1035: 1031: 1000:Brion Vibber 987: 962: 958: 903: 878: 835: 741: 627: 624:sysop voting 623: 620: 576: 571: 502: 472: 450: 442: 420: 399: 365: 357: 346: 291: 286: 282: 274: 264: 256: 250: 221: 215: 203: 197: 189: 182: 176: 170: 164: 154: 78: 74: 72: 60: 57: 36: 2438:WP:ACADEMIC 2258:Minh Nguyễn 1970:Orange Mike 1880:Mark Arsten 1103:Niteshift36 1028:Jimmy Wales 774:Minh Nguyễn 667:Minh Nguyễn 473:Strong Keep 406:article. - 275:Strong Keep 180:free images 2300:Off2riorob 2101:Alzarian16 1691:notability 1172:refimprove 996:User:Brion 770:Blake Ross 2443:Trusilver 2389:Trusilver 2351:WP:ANYBIO 2116:- Passes 2041:Trusilver 1901:WP:ANYBIO 1716:Fut.Perf. 1618:Deterence 1420:SmokeyJoe 1390:key point 1371:SmokeyJoe 1319:SmokeyJoe 1231:Deterence 1116:weak keep 1004:MediaWiki 772:style. – 726:• Gene93k 703:• Gene93k 451:the first 2524:Category 2359:Dusty777 2267:contribs 2246:subpages 2241:Comment. 2190:wp:BLP1E 2186:User:Mxn 2177:Redirect 2147:- Fails 2118:WP:BASIC 2066:Redirect 1994:Trongphu 1946:Dusty777 1928:Trongphu 1909:Dusty777 1864:Redirect 1836:Redirect 1819:Trongphu 1780:Trongphu 1741:Trongphu 1697:lifebaka 1683:Redirect 1660:Trongphu 1658:opinion. 1597:Trongphu 1550:Trongphu 1492:Trongphu 1454:Trongphu 1395:Trongphu 1365:. "The 1345:Trongphu 1307:Redirect 1290:Trongphu 1267:WP:BLP1E 1258:Redirect 1245:WP:BLP1E 1155:Trongphu 1134:WP:BLP1E 1084:Trongphu 1068:Trongphu 1050:Trongphu 967:Trongphu 926:Trongphu 908:Trongphu 883:Trongphu 856:WP:BLP1E 848:reliable 819:Trongphu 805:Trongphu 783:contribs 742:Comment. 676:contribs 632:Trongphu 582:Trongphu 544:Trongphu 490:WP:BLP1E 456:Trongphu 400:Redirect 377:Trongphu 334:Trongphu 296:Trongphu 292:millions 147:View log 2408:largely 2215:Comment 2020:Ryulong 1732:founder 523:Thincat 408:DonCalo 347:Comment 226:King of 222:abstain 186:WP refs 174:scholar 120:protect 115:history 2454:Drmies 2434:WP:BIO 2416:WP:IAR 2404:WP:NMO 2400:WP:JNN 2355:WP:GNG 2317:Drmies 2313:Delete 2281:Delete 2223:WP:GNG 2198:Yoenit 2155:Eagles 2149:WP:GNG 2145:Delete 2097:WP:GNG 2036:Delete 2011:Delete 1965:Delete 1926:wiki). 1905:WP:NPF 1903:& 1897:WP:GNG 1895:Check 1893:Delete 1872:WP:GNG 1797:delete 1758:Delete 1712:Delete 1642:debate 1638:pretty 1570:Eagles 1564:battle 1509:Eagles 1471:Delete 1450:better 1416:WP:BIO 1341:is not 1264:, per 1099:Delete 988:Delete 944:VQuakr 860:VQuakr 852:WP:IAR 844:WP:GNG 800:Joakim 762:Joakim 454:(XXG). 443:detail 421:Delete 359:Cullen 283:nobody 258:Cullen 158:Google 124:delete 75:delete 2481:merge 2420:Hobit 2374:Hobit 2349:Read 2331:Hobit 2120:with 2089:Merge 2051:Hobit 1868:Merge 1762:Quale 1737:a lot 1418:. -- 1393:vote. 1243:Read 1193:Hobit 1132:Read 1120:Hobit 1009:Versa 838:with 836:Merge 488:Read 287:a lot 201:JSTOR 162:books 141:views 133:watch 129:links 85:talk 16:< 2493:talk 2458:talk 2436:and 2424:talk 2378:talk 2363:talk 2335:talk 2321:talk 2304:talk 2263:talk 2232:talk 2202:talk 2192:and 2180:his 2162:24/7 2136:talk 2123:and 2114:Keep 2105:talk 2055:talk 1998:talk 1976:Talk 1950:talk 1932:talk 1913:talk 1884:talk 1823:talk 1805:talk 1784:talk 1766:talk 1745:talk 1664:talk 1601:talk 1577:24/7 1554:talk 1516:24/7 1496:talk 1458:talk 1424:talk 1399:talk 1375:talk 1349:talk 1323:talk 1294:talk 1224:some 1212:Keep 1197:talk 1159:talk 1124:talk 1107:talk 1088:talk 1072:talk 1054:talk 1041:most 1014:geek 1006:. -- 971:talk 948:talk 930:talk 912:talk 887:talk 864:talk 823:talk 809:talk 796:Dụng 794:For 779:talk 758:Dụng 730:talk 707:talk 672:talk 636:talk 602:talk 586:talk 563:talk 548:talk 527:talk 503:Keep 480:talk 460:talk 447:here 429:talk 412:talk 381:talk 338:talk 316:. - 300:talk 279:here 251:Keep 220:. I 194:FENS 168:news 137:logs 111:talk 107:edit 2483:to 2418:). 2412:are 2288:fan 2168:(C) 2091:to 2068:to 1973:| 1856:(c) 1848:one 1838:to 1685:to 1583:(C) 1546:not 1522:(C) 1309:to 746:COI 598:DHN 559:DHN 425:DHN 402:to 208:TWL 145:– ( 80:DGG 2526:: 2495:) 2460:) 2426:) 2380:) 2365:) 2357:. 2337:) 2323:) 2306:) 2285:GB 2265:, 2234:) 2204:) 2188:, 2138:) 2107:) 2057:) 2029:) 2026:竜龙 2013:: 2000:) 1952:) 1934:) 1915:) 1899:, 1886:) 1825:) 1807:) 1786:) 1768:) 1747:) 1703:++ 1666:) 1603:) 1556:) 1532:if 1498:) 1460:) 1426:) 1401:) 1377:) 1351:) 1325:) 1296:) 1199:) 1175:}} 1169:{{ 1161:) 1126:) 1109:) 1090:) 1074:) 1056:) 998:( 973:) 950:) 932:) 914:) 889:) 866:) 854:, 825:) 811:) 798:, 781:, 760:, 732:) 724:— 721:. 709:) 701:— 698:. 674:, 638:) 604:) 588:) 565:) 550:) 529:) 482:) 462:) 431:) 414:) 383:) 340:) 302:) 243:♠ 224:. 188:) 139:| 135:| 131:| 127:| 122:| 118:| 113:| 109:| 87:) 43:. 2491:( 2456:( 2422:( 2376:( 2361:( 2333:( 2319:( 2302:( 2269:) 2261:( 2230:( 2200:( 2134:( 2103:( 2053:( 2023:( 1996:( 1988:' 1948:( 1930:( 1911:( 1882:( 1821:( 1803:( 1782:( 1764:( 1743:( 1719:☼ 1662:( 1599:( 1552:( 1494:( 1456:( 1422:( 1397:( 1373:( 1347:( 1321:( 1292:( 1195:( 1157:( 1122:( 1105:( 1086:( 1070:( 1052:( 969:( 965:. 946:( 928:( 910:( 885:( 862:( 821:( 807:( 785:) 777:( 728:( 705:( 678:) 670:( 634:( 600:( 584:( 561:( 546:( 525:( 478:( 458:( 427:( 410:( 379:( 336:( 298:( 240:♣ 235:♦ 230:♥ 212:) 204:· 198:· 190:· 183:· 177:· 171:· 165:· 160:( 152:( 149:) 143:) 105:( 83:( 49:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge (XXG)

:Articles for deletion/Nguyễn Xuân Minh (Knowledge (XXG)n) - Knowledge (XXG)

Index