Disputatio:Petrus Nguyễn Văn Hùng

Alert

cross wiki promo push - removed on wiki-nl several times already. Also misuse of sockpuppets on both wiki-en (permblocks there for a long list) and wiki-nl. Kind regards, MoiraMoira 15:17, 10 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, MoiraMoira. Someone is certainly trying to own the article. We'll keep an eye on it.

The misuse of Wikipedia accounts is a nuisance, but I think this man is notable. Searching Google for "Reverend Peter Nguyen" is convincing. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:36, 10 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)

Note the discussions at fr:wiki fr:Discussion:Peter Nguyễn Văn Hùng and fr:Wikipédia:Pages à supprimer/Peter Nguyễn Văn Hùng, with a link to en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nipponese Dog Calvero/Archive; see also the decision to delete (for not very good reasons, it appears) at de:wiki [1]. The problems are not about Nguyễn Văn Hùng, who is surely notable; they are about a persistent vandal who disapproves of some of the sources used. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:24, 12 Maii 2009 (UTC)

See also the Danish discussion [2]. The article has been deleted there too. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 00:15, 30 Maii 2009 (UTC)

@Hoyanova: has proposed swift deletion of the article, stating "persistent cross-wiki spam". I think this deserves discussion. There has been no activity on this page since 2019. Certainly, before that time, an anonymous user was trying to own the article and remove references from it: See the discussion here dating back to 2009! But the page has been protected, and setting the past disruption aside, it appeared to me that the subject is notable. I still think so. Any other comments? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:05, 15 Martii 2024 (UTC)

I have asked Hoyanova to comment. The latest anonymous contributor commented as follows on my talk page:

Nihil mali est cum hoc argumento, cur aliqui usores eam per linguas delere volunt? [signed with an IP address]

Let me add: pages about political/social activists are often subject to nuisance edits, and to anonymous edits: one reason for the anonymity is that named contributors may risk retaliation; one reason for the nuisance edits is that such subjects attract strong views. In this case this page seems to me a good demonstration that the subject is notable, so perhaps what we need is a better article rather than a deleted article. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:08, 16 Martii 2024 (UTC)

See en:Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Nipponese_Dog_Calvero this will explain sufficiently I think. Also see wellknown personal attacks on talkpage here and on en-wiki. Hoyanova (disputatio) 06:46, 17 Martii 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, @Hoyanova:. The page that you linked to explains a lot. It includes the words "Whether this person is notable or not is to be dealt with on your local wiki". That's the difficult issue here. "Petrus Nguyễn Văn Hùng", given the source I cited above, is surely notable. Therefore, if this unlucky person succeeds in getting articles about Petrus Nguyễn Văn Hùng deleted, this unlucky person has beaten Wikipedia. We should refuse to be beaten. So (unless any other editor takes this job on, feel free anyone to do so!) I propose to improve the article to a reasonable standard and protect it. Any views? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:37, 17 Martii 2024 (UTC)

His notability looks adequately established, so indeed, let's keep the article and touch it up as time permits. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:46, 17 Martii 2024 (UTC)