Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Van Hoang


 * 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. Or at most no consensus. Apart from the nominator, the "delete" opinions don't really develop an argument or address the sources found by the "keep" side in any detail.  Sandstein  08:03, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Van Hoang

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Poorly sourced stub about a non-notable writer. A search finds this article, but I don't know how WP:RS Publishers Weekly is, and in any case one source isn't enough to establish notability. Fails general WP:GNG and specific WP:AUTHOR notability. (The only reason I didn't request speedy was because some might argue that a published book implies some noteworthiness.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:24, 28 February 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:29, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:24, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:24, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:24, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:24, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Conventionally, an author can usually pass WP:NAUTHOR with two WP:NBOOK-notable books. In addition to the Publishers' Weekly profile/interview from the nom, I found some reviews. Monkey King: kirkus (starred) booklist (starred) PW (starred) school library journal. Jade War: kirkus booklist (starred). PW doesn't have a full review of the sequel, just a nod in a list of noteworthy sequels; no mention of the sequel at SLJ. (As a general tip, looking at the publisher's page for a book can be a good way to find published reviews, since they like to quote from them.) I interpret that as two NBOOK passes and therefore an NAUTHOR pass. The PW profile gives a useful amount of biographical information that allows for a meaningful author profile to be written, and there is also a kirkus interview. ~ L 🌸  (talk) 00:59, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, implied in my !vote but I should state it -- I consider PW a standard RS for book reviews. Kirkus, PW, and Booklist are not the most selective review venues (ie they're not slam-dunk for notability the way a NYT or LARB review would be) but the starred reviews are much more distinctive, so the first one is a clear pass with 3 starred reviews, and it's the star at booklist that really pushes the second one over the line for NBOOK for me. ~ L 🌸  (talk) 01:03, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment — two things: 1) a book review may make the book notable, but not its author, unless it provides sigcov of the latter; and 2) even if you accept that two notable books makes the author inherently notable, where is the second notable book? A book having been written does not automatically make it notable. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:17, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @DoubleGrazing I missed the second book reading the comment too, because it's buried in the list of review links. That's Jade War, which has both a Kirkus review and the starred Booklist one. -- asilvering (talk) 02:03, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) WP:AUTHOR states that an author is notable if they have created ... a significant or well-known work or collective body of work which has been the primary subject of ... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. There is no requirement for sigcov of the author. NAUTHOR is unusual, like WP:NPROF, for allowing persons to derive notability from their works even when there is no direct biographical coverage. However, in this case we also have two RS profiles of the author in addition to the reviews. 2) WP:NBOOK states that a book is notable if it has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include ... reviews. The second book has two published reviews. ~ L 🌸  (talk) 02:31, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete: The "sources" currently provided are all mere publicity. There's already a wiki article on the novel. What's the point of a biographical article on the author with no biographical information and no reliable sources? Ficaia (talk) 08:59, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. LEvalyn has demonstrated the two WP:NBOOK passes. I think it's worth adding that the second book only just came out, so this is more an "already two reviews" situation than an "only two reviews" situation. As for "what's the point in a biographical article that is only a sentence long" - that's an argument against stubs, not this stub in particular, and to expand this one we do have biographical info - see for example this extensive profile in PW: (to answer nom's question - this is the trade journal for publishing in the USA). -- asilvering (talk) 02:26, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep per ~ L 🌸 and asilvering, and on Proquest, there is an Oct 2020 review for Girl Giant and the Monkey King by The Bulletin of the Center for Children's Books (an academic journal) and the in-depth Dec 2020 Publishers Weekly article noted above about her and her career. Beccaynr (talk) 18:13, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete It is a case of WP:TOOSOON, The topic is not eligible for a Wikipedia article. Fails WP:GNG. Jeni Wolf (talk) 06:04, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Not disagreeing with your vote, but @Jeni Wolf can you clarify The topic is not eligible for a Wikipedia article please? An author is eligible and it appears that they may meet notability now. Star   Mississippi  00:42, 15 March 2022 (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.