Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linh Dinh

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. Needs a good cleanup, but appears to have notability Black Kite 22:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Linh Dinh

This was speedied as spam over a year ago. While it does indeed appear to be self-authored, it also appears to be a sourced and verifiable bio of a possibly notable person, and therefore not speedy material. bd2412 T 04:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Delete it looks like mainly spam Lego K^ontribs T^alk M 04:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It may be more complicated than that. This person is in The Best American Poetry 2007, and his name was put their by an editor with no apparent connection to the nominated article. In theory, everyone on that page is inherently notable (spam or no spam in their entry). bd2412 T 05:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
  - I don't see how people in that book are inherently notable. It just was one poets personal opinion of what poetry was the best. Duffbeerforme (talk) 10:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - True. It seems that many of the subjects have entries (and the rest are redlinked), but that could merit a closer look as well. bd2412 T 13:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A Google News archive search finds plenty of sources that establish notability. I've added some to the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't complicated at all. While it clearly needs cleaned up, it's a viable article, about a notable person, the article is clearly not spam. This is an easy keep. Articles needing work are different than articles needing to be deleted. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 17:03, 20 September 2008 (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.