Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gordon Vuong
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
- 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 JoshuaZ (talk) 02:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
contested PROD, originally proposed for deletion per WP:BLP1E, but contested by User:Matilda. Non-notable person imprisoned for drug trafficking. Stormie 00:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Not notable; other than things which wouldn't qualify for inclusion per NOT -->NEWS. Old news needless to say. - Rjd0060 00:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This person is not notable, and I would interpret WP:NPF to suggest that an article like this would be extremely damaging to Vuong in his later life. When he finishes his sentence in 11 years he will be 29, and even if he was smuggling highly illegal drugs, who needs a wikipedia article about something you did at 16 to forever haunt your past? --NickPenguin(contribs) 01:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Since when does drug trafficking make someone notable? --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 01:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment you seem to be confusing notability and worthiness - the two are not the same - you can be notable having done something unworthy. He is notable for the circumstances of his arrest, his age, his mother's involvement in that arrest in that the police took actions that "betrayed a young Australian to overseas police after a parent's plea for help" [1] - thus becoming extremely newsworthy in this country. I hope your country's law enforcement agencies do not expose their citizens to the (harsher) legal systems of other countries but rather deal with the crime within the citizen's own jurisdiction.--Matilda talk 20:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Actually, I'm not. I'm just saying, "What, another drug trafficker?". Adolf Hitler certainly fails worthiness, but no serious person would question his notability. --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 22:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- He is not just another drug traficker: his case brings up issues of collaboration by the Australian authorities with a jurisdiction with significantly heavier penalties, particularly for juveniles and when his mother had appealed to the authorities for help - not to dob her son in. Hence the case received significant press coverage in this country - and not just as a one-off but over a period and is likely to continue to do so, or at least be referenced by the press as a benchmark case along with Rush.--Matilda talk 22:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So it's about the case, not the person. --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 23:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes but unlike other cases, such as Beaumont children disappearance or Barlow and Chambers execution I don't think this one can be effectively renamed to refer to the case rather than the person but the article subject is the case not some twerp of a 16 year old though how one spearates the two ... --Matilda talk 00:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So it's about the case, not the person. --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 23:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- He is not just another drug traficker: his case brings up issues of collaboration by the Australian authorities with a jurisdiction with significantly heavier penalties, particularly for juveniles and when his mother had appealed to the authorities for help - not to dob her son in. Hence the case received significant press coverage in this country - and not just as a one-off but over a period and is likely to continue to do so, or at least be referenced by the press as a benchmark case along with Rush.--Matilda talk 22:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Actually, I'm not. I'm just saying, "What, another drug trafficker?". Adolf Hitler certainly fails worthiness, but no serious person would question his notability. --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 22:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment you seem to be confusing notability and worthiness - the two are not the same - you can be notable having done something unworthy. He is notable for the circumstances of his arrest, his age, his mother's involvement in that arrest in that the police took actions that "betrayed a young Australian to overseas police after a parent's plea for help" [1] - thus becoming extremely newsworthy in this country. I hope your country's law enforcement agencies do not expose their citizens to the (harsher) legal systems of other countries but rather deal with the crime within the citizen's own jurisdiction.--Matilda talk 20:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Stormie 03:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. He's notable because he was incarcerated at the age of 16 into a Cambodian prison, and for 13 years to boot. As for WP:NPF, if he comes out alive in 2028, I reckon a long forgotten entry in a Wikipedia article would be the least of his cares. He's also notable because the AFP reported him to Cambodian authorities which led to his arrest.[2] The case is very unusual and fully verified through multiple news reports, but I do wonder if he had a western name whether he'd have gotten more even press than he did. BTW, I thought it was normal practice to notify the article's creator when AfD'ing? —Moondyne 08:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge this andScott Rush and rename........--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 08:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - merging with Scott Rush and renaming would almost certainly involve original research which is against policy. --Matilda talk 20:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There are plenty of drug carriers, mules, and dealers in gaol. Their court cases are reported on. That doesn't make them notable, it makes them criminals. When they recieve unusual penalties, or result in changes to the law, then they are notable. I don't think Cambodians care as much about the magic number of 18 as Australians do, hence he recieved an appropriate sentence for his crime. If he commited the same crime in Australia his name would not have been released to the press.Garrie 10:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Garrie. Many, many people have been put in prison for these types of crimes, and each person has not got their own article on Wikipedia. And from the looks of it, this person didn't exactly change the law. 1ForTheMoney 11:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. "Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but remains of essentially low profile themselves, we should generally avoid having an article on them. If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. Marginal biographies on people with no independent notability can give undue weight to the events in the context of the individual, create redundancy and additional maintenance overhead, and cause problems for our neutral point of view policy. In such cases, a redirect or merge are usually the better options. Cover the event, not the person." - WP:BLP1E. -- Jeandré, 2007-12-04t19:35z
- Keep as per Moondyne - notable in Australia - subject to considerable press coverage (as per references in article - major Australian paapers and magazines) because his mother went to the police and the police informed the Cambodian authorities - he thus received a harsher sentence than if he had been arrested in Australia - there is controversy over the police actions in this case and that of the Bali Nine for the same issues. You cannot merge him and Scott Rush as suggested above - although their cases are similar - they are also different - it would require quite a different article, with original research, by drawing the conclusions of their similarity in the actions of parents and Australian aiuthorities - the closest we have is the list of Australians imprisoned abroad. This is not a one-off news story. The interpretation of our policy on biographies of living persons above is incorrect - wikipedia is not censored, the incident was well documented and newsworthy. The incident was not low profile and the subject is thus not low profile. Notability does not mean worthiness - some people appear to confuse the two - ie a drug runner should not be notable therefore he is not notable does not accord with policy.--Matilda talk 20:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - there is no controversy above that normally present for a young, convicted drug trafficker. Clearly falls into someone notable for 1 thing only as stated numerously above. News archives searching shows that newspapers really don't care much beyond a bit of human interest. He was very foolish, got caught, convicted and failed in appeal. This is just a news story not an encyclopediac article - Peripitus (Talk) 02:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, there are hundreds of people doing hard time for drug smuggling all over the world, and this chap is no more notable than any of them, really. Lankiveil (talk) 08:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep When they get as much news coverage as this, they are notable. DGG (talk) 11:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - but not as per WP:BLP1E. I'm going to say delete as per WP:NOT#NEWS (...Wikipedia articles are not simply... News reports.). Lots of reasons there - people with brief appearances in the news shouldn't have an article. Or maybe this is WP:BLP1E - but both ways, delete. Auroranorth (!) 13:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - such items as a feature article months after the arrest in The Bulletin, which you as an Australian should be aware of as a significant weekly news journal, become more than "brief" mentions in the news--Matilda talk 19:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Moondyne and others above. This is a notable case in Australia and has had significant media coverage in Australia. It would not be appropriate to merge with the Scott Rush article. As Matilda explained, their cases have superficial similarities but are actually very different and need to be addressed separately, so I do not consider the suggestion to merge, rename and redirect the Gordon Vuong article with Scott Rush a viable option. Sarah 14:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Significant controversy in Australia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kieran Bennett (talk • contribs) 21:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep per Matilda. This was a strong controversy in Australia - it is not just "any old drug smuggler". I would ask the closing moderator that they consider that the original contributors to this debate did not understand the significance of the situation. The article is referenced and well-written, and there is no adequate article to merge to. It should be kept and improved upon instead of just wasting everyone's time by deleting everything. JRG (talk) 13:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Matilda's, Moondyne's and JRG's reasoning. It's weird as in the case is notable in and of itself (i.e. not easily mergable) but the person is not. However "Gordon Vuong case" is a clumsy construction and it's better leaving it where it is. Orderinchaos 18:42, 9 December 2007 (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.