Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hoang Thi Loan (3 nomination)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. --Coredesat 03:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Hoang Thi Loan (3 nomination)
This article was nominated earlier today, but the nom was quickly withdrawn. However, for the life of me, I cannot see what is notable about this person other than the fact her son was famous. Verifiability isn't the issue; notability is. Being the mother of a notable person does not confer notability in the absence of any other reason. Agent 86 01:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Her son was not just famous, he was one of the most influential historic figures of the twentieth century. Her humble origins and tragic early death have been referenced for decades in Vietnamese propaganda. So great is her value as a (albeit manufactured) cultural icon that the Communist Party of Vietnam has spent millions of dollars to renovate her tomb. Including an article about this woman is, to me, a no-brainer as it helps battle the Wikipedia's systemic bias toward coverage of Eastern culture. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 02:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Well, the linked news article says that they're spending about US$20mm (their conversion rate is wrong) over 4 years to renovate an entire historic site which includes the mother's tomb but also includes 3 or more villages of historic importance (so multiple buildings across multiple locations), at least one temple, a monument, other family tombs/graves plus there's plans to create 4 or 5 new museum houses. (the wikipedia article says that this four year project was completed in 2005 but references the news article which says the 4yr project began in 2004). Oh I don't think there's blanket system bias in WP against "Eastern culture" (whateva da heck that is), given the key role that Pokemon/Yugioh/Sailor Moon/Nintendo etc etc etc has in wikipedia content Bwithh 03:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- But the examples you cite are also hugely popular in the States and other countries.--Dmz5 03:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I was trying to make a semi-humourous point about "Eastern Culture" or whatever being not really much of a Wikipedia backwater. Vietnam and other small countries (including say, those in Western Europe) - yes, Wikipedia backwaters. Japan, China, India - no. Bwithh 03:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia's coverage of eastern anime/videogame culture is far more comprehensive than its coverage of Vietnamese traditional culture or political history. If a status of notability is granted to each one of the 400+ fictional pokemon simply to appease a few geeks, denying such coverage to a real historic figure seems obscene by comparison. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 03:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Again, I agree completely--Dmz5 03:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia's coverage of eastern anime/videogame culture is far more comprehensive than its coverage of Vietnamese traditional culture or political history. If a status of notability is granted to each one of the 400+ fictional pokemon simply to appease a few geeks, denying such coverage to a real historic figure seems obscene by comparison. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 03:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I was trying to make a semi-humourous point about "Eastern Culture" or whatever being not really much of a Wikipedia backwater. Vietnam and other small countries (including say, those in Western Europe) - yes, Wikipedia backwaters. Japan, China, India - no. Bwithh 03:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- But the examples you cite are also hugely popular in the States and other countries.--Dmz5 03:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Well, the linked news article says that they're spending about US$20mm (their conversion rate is wrong) over 4 years to renovate an entire historic site which includes the mother's tomb but also includes 3 or more villages of historic importance (so multiple buildings across multiple locations), at least one temple, a monument, other family tombs/graves plus there's plans to create 4 or 5 new museum houses. (the wikipedia article says that this four year project was completed in 2005 but references the news article which says the 4yr project began in 2004). Oh I don't think there's blanket system bias in WP against "Eastern culture" (whateva da heck that is), given the key role that Pokemon/Yugioh/Sailor Moon/Nintendo etc etc etc has in wikipedia content Bwithh 03:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Comment Please assume good faith. This nomination has nothing to do with "eastern culture". I don't care what part of the world someone is from, we don't need articles on the mother (or father) of every famous person unless that person has done something notabile in his or her own right. If the tomb is the big deal, then an article on the tomb might be encyclopedic. The article itself continues to lack or denote any notability. As for Ho Chi Mihn being "one of the most influential historic figures of the twentieth century", that's a matter of opinion. I suggest he's much further back in the queue. Agent 86 02:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- There is a clear double standard here. Consider the well-written article on Virginia Clinton Kelley, whose only notable achievement was giving birth to Bill Clinton. By the way, asserting that being the mother of a notable historic figure does not confer notability is also a matter of opinion, many biographers would staunchly disagree with such dismissal. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 02:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- I gotta agree on this one.--Dmz5 02:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- No double standard here. I was unaware of the Kelley article, and if it were up for nomination I'd be saying delete it, too. Two non-notable persons do not make a notable one. As for what most biographers have to say, argument ad nauseum does not prove anything, but to be more to the point, if you're writing a biography, the mother is relevant (not necessarily notable) to the subject matter of the biography. In that case, anything that can be said for any of these non-notable mothers can be said in their children's articles. Agent 86 08:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Too many details about family members would bog down the main article. However if there is enough well-sourced information to create a succinct biography of an immediate family member of a historic figure, then creating a short supplemental article will improve the overall coverage of that figure. In any case it seems clear that we are looking at this issue from two completely different vantage points, so I'll just say that I don't agree with your reasoning. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 21:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- No double standard here. I was unaware of the Kelley article, and if it were up for nomination I'd be saying delete it, too. Two non-notable persons do not make a notable one. As for what most biographers have to say, argument ad nauseum does not prove anything, but to be more to the point, if you're writing a biography, the mother is relevant (not necessarily notable) to the subject matter of the biography. In that case, anything that can be said for any of these non-notable mothers can be said in their children's articles. Agent 86 08:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- I gotta agree on this one.--Dmz5 02:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- There is a clear double standard here. Consider the well-written article on Virginia Clinton Kelley, whose only notable achievement was giving birth to Bill Clinton. By the way, asserting that being the mother of a notable historic figure does not confer notability is also a matter of opinion, many biographers would staunchly disagree with such dismissal. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 02:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Please assume good faith. This nomination has nothing to do with "eastern culture". I don't care what part of the world someone is from, we don't need articles on the mother (or father) of every famous person unless that person has done something notabile in his or her own right. If the tomb is the big deal, then an article on the tomb might be encyclopedic. The article itself continues to lack or denote any notability. As for Ho Chi Mihn being "one of the most influential historic figures of the twentieth century", that's a matter of opinion. I suggest he's much further back in the queue. Agent 86 02:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete or Merge I'm just not seeing sufficient notability for her own article here. An article on these historic villages is certainly in order, and mention of the mother could be merged in that and into her son's article. I very much sympathize with WP:BIAS, but in this case, that just means that I'd support merges for the silly article on Bill Clinton's mother too (are we to have separate article on every single historically significant person's mother and father?) Bwithh 03:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- Here's a thought about all these relatives-of-historic-persons articles - they should be rolled up as subsections of one article, say Close family members of Bill Clinton or Close family members of Ho Chi Minh. I mean there's really not that much to say about most of these characters. Bwithh 03:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. There is no way can a person get a government memorial without being notable. I am assuming good faith, but I definitely see a bias in the nomination because subject is an obscure topic in the west. "Done something notable" is not the issue, being notable is. There is no merit involved. hateless 03:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep seems pretty clearly notable to me. As per Hateless, one needs not have done something notable to be notable. Her tomb is mentioned in numerous tourist guides, and there seems to be plenty of indication that she is quite highly revered in Vietnam. --Canley 03:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep to avoid the danger of systemic bias -Toptomcat 04:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Hateless. Number of sources indicates notability in Vietnamese culture. --Dhartung | Talk 05:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Verifiability is close enough to implying notability that it should usually be treated as such. -Amarkov blahedits 05:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Verfiable and notable RaveenS 13:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I'm not a proponent of meeting WP:BIO per birthing someone who meets WP:BIO, but the fact she has a tomb dedicated to her suggests she is fairly notable in her own right as hateless suggests.--Isotope23 14:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Notability is not subjective. This article meets the primary notability criterion; it is referenced in multiple, independent sources and should therefore stay. ccscott 14:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep Clearly famous. — brighterorange (talk) 14:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep Notable figure, even if only because of the Communist Party mythology that has grown up around her. Agree with most of the comments by Anetode. Orderinchaos78 17:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and expand Clearly notable per her role in CP propaganda; article really needs more on that, her tomb, etc. Perel 05:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- Merge Notability yes, notability outside her familial connections no. Even the two reliable sources are really about Ho Chi Minh. Maybe the article can be branched out again if it actually gains some substance outside her role as mother. (And on the supposed cultural bias, we don't even have an article on Vernon Presley.) ~ trialsanderrors 10:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and expand per Perel. it's her status as icon/propaganda (tho needs proper sourcing etc.) that is important, not simply her being ho's mother per se. application of WP:CSB is also so obvious it shouldn't need pointing out (& users insistence on reading reminders about WP:CSB as accusations is a breach of agf, quite apart from being irrelevant) ⇒ bsnowball 12:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and expand Rough 16:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- strong keep We do not need mothers of every famous person. We do need mothers of very famous people whose influence upon their famous daughter or son is itself notable, and discussed by verifiable reference sources. This is an instance of what we do want.DGG 01:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per the commenters above and please stop relisting this for deletion. Yamaguchi先生 02:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not giving an opinion in this AFD, but I have to respond to your comment "please stop relisting this for deletion." There's nothing procedurally wrong with this AFD -- it raises a valid notability concern that has not been discussed in almost a year. Note that the first AFD was in January and resulted in no consensus, and the 2nd AFD didn't address notability (it addressed verifiability due to my stupid mistake and was quickly and trivially resolved). Pan Dan 03:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep extremely strong keep per statements above, and a simple google result check. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 06:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Agree with comments about cultural bias while not accusing proposer of that motivation. A quick check shows that most US presidents' mothers have articles whether or not they were especially notable by themselves, eg Nancy Hanks, Jane Randolph Jefferson, Martha Bulloch, Mary Ball Washington, Ida Elizabeth Stover, etc etc. Hoang Thi Loan is more famous in Vietnam than most of these are in the US. --Zerotalk 12:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - for refence to her son. SweetGodiva 22:25, 18 December 2006 (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.
