Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrea Long Chu


 * 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. Tone 16:02, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Andrea Long Chu

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject doesn't meet notability standards set out at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Basic_criteria Has written some blog posts which have been commented on by other blog writers but no evidence of substantial independent coverage; plus, most of the material in this article is from an interview the subject gave to an oral history project therefore not an independent source. MurielMary (talk) 11:25, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:26, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:26, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:26, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

The number of academic publications that Chu has authored evidences notability under the criteria for Academics. I have added a number of their academic publications to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smurf anemone (talk • contribs) 17:51, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delet not enough secondary coverage to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Which additions are you claiming show notability? To show notability, the sources need to be about a subject, not by them... –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 23:04, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I suppose reading the section on 'Academics' I interpret the 'a widely recognized contribution' part of the notability criteria as being fulfilled by the peer reviewed academic contributions to the field. Also there is a forthcoming publication from Verso books, that has a review by Professor Lauren Berlant, a significant figure in the field. See https://www.versobooks.com/books/3061-females — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smurf anemone (talk • contribs) 18:23, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * KEEP: The Blanchard piece in Vice calling her “the cult writer who is changing gender theory”; the Thom piece in Slate; the Srinivasan piece in the London Review of Books all establish notability. And let’s be clear, this note posted by Muriel Mary when she proposed this AfD is blatantly false: “Has written some blog posts which have been commented on by other blog writers but no evidence of substantial independent coverage.” It’s not a good look to start off a deletion discussion with falsehoods, and it makes one question whether the nominator for deletion has an unspoken agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeRossitt (talk • contribs)
 * Delete. Sources below par, for example Vice is questionable RS (the claim of notability is based on this) and NYT is opinion piece. Agricola44 (talk) 13:33, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Rab V (talk) 08:14, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Dispute heavily pending on interpretations of reliability of certain sources.
 * Keep Vice is seen as more reliable for arts and entertainment topics, see Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Chu's writing is also discussed in Columbia Journalism Review and London Review of Books. Rab V (talk) 20:57, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep subject passes WP:GNG, the Vice piece also appears to be reliable to me. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 07:36, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 14:07, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Profiled at length in a source that is reliable for the purpose; selected for a substantial interview (indicating that the "world at large" found her worth interviewing, which counts toward wiki-notability even though her statements about herself are primary sources). The multiple rounds of responses to her essays have been far more substantial than your typical social-media dust-up. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:12, 24 August 2019 (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.