Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R.F. Kuang


 * 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. Michig (talk) 07:54, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

R.F. Kuang

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Recently published author, does not meet WP: AUTHOR notability. Content on the page primarily about the published book.  Shobhit102 |  talk  04:23, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:56, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:56, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:04, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:04, 1 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. Satisfies GNG and AUTHOR with multiple periodical reviews. Her book, The Poppy War, is held by over six hundred libraries: . There is a lot of coverage in GNews: . James500 (talk) 00:04, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Possible solution? Remove any biographical content about the author (essentially only two short sentences of the present article) that cannot be verified, move the article to the title The Poppy War, and any biographical information about the author that can be preserved can be included in The Poppy War. James's sources above do not actually demonstrate the notability of the author as they are all about her book (see also WP:NOTINHERITED). Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 01:57, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * On second thought, per EMG's sources, if she's already been "commissioned" (is this the right word for when an author is requested by their publisher to write a sequel, regardless of whether money was exchanged?) to produce two sequels, I guess that information would be more at home in an article on the author than an article on the first novel, so keep. I do wonder about the effectiveness of editathons promoting the creation of stub articles on modern Asian-American writers, though. I'm obviously very sympathetic to their goals, and even if I wasn't their good faith could not be questioned, but encouraging folks in the "real world" who are not necessarily familiar with our BLP policy specifically to create BLP articles might cause more harm than good to the project in the long run. (Wikipedia does have a systemic bias against Asian-American writers relative to, say, white or Black American writers, but English Wikipedia's bias against non-English literature in general, and the literature of Kuang's birth country and its neighbours in particular, is far, far greater. And our systemic bias is actually very much in favour of modern, English-language speculative fiction, so whether creating more articles like this one actually helps the problem is a legitimate question.) This is, however, way outside the scope of this AFD. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 06:09, 3 September 2018 (UTC)


 * keep looks like she passes WP:AUTHOR (book was reviewed). Note that 2nd and 3rd books of this trilogy are scheduled to follow this debut novel.  There were reviews (I just added one form the Washington Post, plus there is this: If an Asian American author doesn’t have a Wikipedia page, do they exist?, Kundiman and the Asian American Writers Workshop are trying to chip away at the website’s blind spots, one page at a time.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:34, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * - WP:AUTHOR has a much higher bar than an author merely being reviewed - AUTHOR(3) states The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews., and AUTHOR(4c) has won significant critical attention,. A few reviews do not satisfy this. A large collection of reviews - possibly satisfy AUTHOR(4c).Icewhiz (talk) 06:06, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * In regards to creation of this article by the Asian American Writers' Workshop - how is that relevant? COI? Icewhiz (talk) 06:20, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know that it's COI, just that it certainly caught my eye when I ran a search on her name. Kuang, in my opinion, is notable, but I have noticed instances where these events produce a problematic overabundance of partisan enthusiasm (not necessarily ethinc.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:36, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep William Graham talk 16:14, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with you on what should be done here, but since AFDs are not votes, simply saying "keep" without even providing a reason (or, preferably, a detailed, unique argument) will just lead to you being ignored by the closer. It's not a serious concern here since the page is unlikely to be deleted, but if all the keep !votes looked like what you wrote above, a good AFD closer would simply discount all of them and soft-delete the page because the only one who made an argument was the OP. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 06:14, 3 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Per above, there are also a couple of Chinese-language reports from Chinese-American media (World Journal and Boxun). Timmyshin (talk) 18:47, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:24, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:24, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:24, 5 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep but rename to The Poppy War. The author of a single book with not that many reviews (and the reviews and coverage are focused on the book, not her, and some of them are not independent coverage - but rather promotional by the publishing house (or interviews with the author)) - most certainly does not meet NAUTHOR (or GNG). The book (or triology if it actually gets published) does meet the rather low bar of WP:NBOOK. Icewhiz (talk) 06:12, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I think we can keep the article as a bio; I have expanded the page with details of her life sourced form some of the several profiles that newspapers have run since the book came out.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:23, 6 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Per above - The Poppy War is widely reviewed and collected by many libraries. I agree we can keep the article as a bio because there are sufficient sources and, in addition to being a Marshall Scholar, Kuang will publish at least two more books as part of the trilogy. Megs (talk) 17:20, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep, serious coverage, one more if you need it --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:53, 6 September 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.