Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michelle Yu (2nd nomination)

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. Daniel (talk) 00:43, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Yu

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article fails GNG and has been updated since the last time or at least during the previous nomination. But what another user, who participated in the first AFD, added doesn't add notability as I stated in response to his keep vote. The majority of sources now used aren't really sources. They are links to books this person has written and the reviews of those books. An NYT article that's about her relationship with her husband. Not newsworthy nor does it establish or expand upon the person's notability. Two other sources, number one and number three, don't really add anything. A quick Google search will not find much on the person other than what's already stated in the article. This person is too local in the NYC area. Not well known outside or rather not well known within the NYC area. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:44, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 04:52, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 04:52, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 04:52, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is more coverage of Yu and Kan's work in sources such as this, this and this. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:10, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not known outside New York?? and lack of 3rd part links?? But as Phil notes she is referenced in this book as an example when discussing "Asian American Women's Popular Literature: Feminizing Genres and Neoliberal Belonging". I only made one spot check and Phil's ref undermines the nomination's rationale. Victuallers (talk) 09:35, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NAUTHOR. Author of notable books, as they've been reviewed by multiple reliable sources. pburka (talk) 11:57, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NAUTHOR, I also added a review from Kirkus Reviews to the article, and the sources found by Phil Bridger could be incorporated. Beccaynr (talk) 12:07, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How does linking book reviews make the person notable? The article continues to look promotional than anything else. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:46, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Book reviews demonstrate that her books are notable. Authors of multiple notable books are notable by WP:NAUTHOR#3. At the very least, we could justify articles about her two notable books, but I'd rather have one article about the author. Can you clarify which part of the article is WP:PROMO? I don't see any puffery or even external links. pburka (talk) 15:03, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per the author notability guidelines: "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." Don't see any of this in the sources unless you're counting the academic sources which reference her works.

Second, "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique." No evidence of this.

Third, "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." The last part of the reviews is what the two users are basing their keep votes on. However, the Kirkus Reviews page is actually published by the two authors and an unreliable source. And on the website of Kirkus reviews authors can buy reviews per their policy. Coverage of her work isn't enough in my view. There is very little information about her broadcasting and the start of her writing career. Majority of which is also unsourced.

Fourth, "The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." Fails all four criteria under this guideline. You might add it qualifies under C "won significant critical attention." None of the reviews of her books are significant especially when there is a review written by the author itself and most likely paid for it to be on there. And the promotional feel come from this sentence, "China Dolls (2008) tells the story about the lives of three Asian American professional women in New York City and has been described as a 'Chinese American installment of the Sex in the City genre'." The last part is promotional when it states it has been described as, but that review starts with "This Chinese American installment of the Sex in the City-genre..." It's not it has been described as by multiple people or reviews, but just from the point of view of one reviewer. It feels this part of the article uses the some people say argument or statement. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:46, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The academic sources contribute to her notability as an author, and help show the work is 'significant or well-known.' And the authors did not write the Kirkus Reviews review, which seems obvious based on the content of the review, nor does this appear to be the kind of "indie review" that can be paid for. The article can be revised for promotional tone, e.g. a more clear attribution to a book review, but the sources already in the article and cited in this discussion appear sufficient to support notability. Beccaynr (talk) 17:17, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Did the nominator read the Kirkus review? It describes the writing as "painfully pedestrian" and the book as "an exercise in niche marketing." It's very obviously an independent and critical review. pburka (talk) 17:42, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did. Sorry, I worded it wrong. What I meant was that anyone can pay their way to have their work reviewed at Kirkus. We need to address the lack of sources of her employment at publications and TV networks. The SNY part is sourced twice with one source, but that source doesn't have a lot of information nor much depth/detail. The lead sentence states she is a journalist and news anchor. We need a source for that. And given the current status of the article, an article in the NYT about her relationship doesn't seem notable unless the article has improved. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:05, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The NYT article includes information about her work as an anchor and reporter that has been added to the article; I also added information about a NY Emmy award she won to the article. The link you provided to the option Kirkus offers for paid reviews emphasizes impartiality and appears to support the independence and reliability of a Kirkus review when assessing notability per WP:NAUTHOR, and perhaps especially this particular review, as noted by pburka. Beccaynr (talk) 19:22, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.