Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M. J. Kang


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Jdcomix (talk) 01:19, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

M. J. Kang

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Minor performer and playwright. Most Dora Award winners do not have their own articles. Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  03:16, 4 February 2018 (UTC)


 * KEEP i have cited few reliable references and now the article fulfill criteria as per Wikipedia guidelines Truembp (talk) 11:36, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 02:36, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 02:36, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 02:36, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 02:36, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 02:36, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 02:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete nothing indicated the subject meets the notability guidelines for actors.02:57, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. I grant that nothing here is a particularly strong WP:NACTOR pass as JPL points out just above me, but that completely misses the point: what she does have is a credible WP:NAUTHOR pass as a playwright. Dora nominations (the exact literal equivalent of a Tony Award, once you realize that "they're less notable just because I've never heard of them" is not a thing) do count as a potentially valid notability claim — the thing being, just as with many film awards, that the public-face categories (actors, directors and writers) are generally much more likely to have quality reliable source coverage about them than the behind-the-scenes ones (lighting, costume design, etc.) do. So it's not exactly true that "most Dora winners don't have articles" — the truth is that it depends on the category, just the same way as the actors and directors and screenwriters in a Genie Award or Canadian Screen Award article are much more likely to actually be blue links than the costume designers and cinematographers are. The actors and playwrights from a Dora nominations list are more likely to have Wikipedia articles as a rule, and for any class of topic there's always a distinction between whether similar people do have articles or not and whether they can have articles or not — we're missing articles about many members of the Parliament of Ghana and the Maine House of Representatives, too — but that doesn't mean they're not notable, it just means people haven't gotten around to getting them finished yet. Kang gets more than enough hits on a ProQuest search to repair this, as well: the sourcing problems here have less to do with coverage not existing, because it does, and more to do with the fact that she appears to have taken a hiatus during the very time when we were starting to get stricter about sourcing articles properly. So she's not non-notable, she was just "out of sight, out of mind" for a while. This is entirely repairable, I'll take a stab at it right now. Bearcat (talk) 04:13, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep the article has been substantially improved since nomination and has references to reliable sources including The Toronto Star, Globe and Mail and National Post and so passes WP:GNG. Notable awards and reviews also pass WP:CREATIVE " has received significant critical attention". Atlantic306 (talk) 19:07, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 04:23, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per these edits. --Donald Trung (Talk) (Articles) 06:30, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep I added links from some of the Toronto Star citations to their newspaper archives so you can see some of the source text. Appears to have significant coverage satisfying GNG. Lonehexagon (talk) 16:31, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, that's not actually a useful thing to do. If we can't provide a link to the entire text of an article, then there's no value in providing a link to a mere abstract of it. Wikipedia has no requirement whatsoever that our sources actually have to be web-accessible at all — we are allowed to cite print-only content, such as paper or microfilm copies of newspapers or magazines or books, so we should only provide a convenience URL if one exists for the complete text of the source. Bearcat (talk) 22:07, 14 February 2018 (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.