Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caroline Vu


 * 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. Consensus is that this passes WP:AUTHOR. (non-admin closure) --  Dane talk  22:39, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Caroline Vu

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Minimal notability; the article is created and edited by SPAs that shills for Vu, and while she has won some awards she has zero coverage outside that and it's not clear how notable those awards are (eg Canadian Authors Association seems itself to have been the work of a shill). Pinkbeast (talk) 00:44, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * To question the importance of literary awards by Canada's largest and oldest writers' association demonstrates a clear absence of knowledge about the Canadian literary scene. Unfortunately, Pinkbeast has made several edits that have factually changed the nature and importance of the author's work, demonstrating a total unfamiliarity with this author. Unfamiliarity by one Wikipedia user with an author does not equate minimal notability. On several occasions, I have had to revert erroroneous changes. The Caroline Vu article has been identified by Wikipedia a "stub" article to which Wikipedia contributors have been specifically invited to expand on. Yet, each effort to expand the article to properly inform Wikipedia readers about the subject of this article has been countered in a matter of seconds by Pinkbeast. Pinkbeast has demonstrated a very weak understanding of literary genre, making the argument that a novel cannot be of creative non-fiction (Please see Wikipedia's own article on the Non-Fiction Novel that demonstrates the absurdity of that allegation). Caroline Vu's notability is rising on both the English and French (through her translated novels) literary scenes in Canada. She has received a full page news coverage in the Montreal Gazette, one of Canada's leading English newspapers. In the last two weeks, her work has been highlighted on a major TV station, in a major Canadian magazine (Châtelaine) and in Montreal's largest circulation newspaper (le Journal de Montréal). She is also in the running for another literary award for short fiction, this time a British award (decision to be announced in October 2017). Citations for this notable news coverage and literary acclaim for the author's work appear in the article. While this author is not yet Margaret Atwood, she is an active writer with a very promising career ahead of her and is certainly notable enough to merit a good factual article in Wikipedia.Literary Muse (talk) 01:23, 12 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:38, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:40, 12 September 2017 (UTC)


 * She has some press, although not sure how reliable source-ish these all are. And briefer. Although her first novel was basically self-published it still got some press and award noms. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:40, 12 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Reluctant keep. This does need a major scrubdown for neutrality issues and referencing improvement, but there are credible notability claims here — even if there are problems with the Canadian Authors Association's article, it is a fundamentally notable organization whose awards do count for something toward WP:AUTHOR, as is the Quebec Writers' Federation. Literary Muse has a declared conflict of interest, however — they have declared themselves in past edit summaries as knowing Caroline Vu personally, which means that they do not have any right to convert the article into Caroline Vu's own preferred public relations version. For example, the past attempts to remove the source for who she was formerly married to were entirely inappropriate, as there was no valid reason given for the removal — the article's tone and content, and what sources are or are not permissible in it, are our decision to make according to our rules, not Caroline Vu's or Literary Muse's. I've made some adjustments to the article to improve the sourcing and remove the most advertorialized content — any award nomination that we can't source to media coverage about the award's shortlist, but exclusively to the award's own self-published content about itself, is an award about which Wikipedia cares not a whit — but there's enough here to keep as long as we neutralize it and keep the sourcing clean. Bearcat (talk) 21:37, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I guess with what Colapeninsula has found I can't argue against keep. Thank you for your eye on the article. Pinkbeast (talk) 21:42, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:39, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep The awards and reviews together might constitute significant critical attention per WP:AUTHOR, and pretty clearly get her over the WP:GNG bar. Article has been cleaned up and presents no major NPOV or referencing problems. FourViolas (talk) 00:50, 19 September 2017 (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.