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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:57, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gu Hua

[edit]

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

No demonstration of notability per the general notability guideline and the notability guidelines for biographies. The user who created the article supplied [1] & [2] as references for notability. I'm not sure on the first one, but the second is an encyclopedia article, not being aware of the inclusion criteria I'm unsure whether it proves notability or not. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:31, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per callanecc. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 08:32, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gu Hua graces the pages of the New York Times at Rebels, Victims and Apologists. Also sources in Toronto Star, Los Angeles Times. Notability is at least possible. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:15, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Chiswick Chap --정과 (talk) 01:08, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with Callanecc.--Zananiri (talk) 15:19, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Added sources and expanded article. Winner of prestigious Chinese literary award. Works are best sellers in China. Novel adapted to major award winning film (the top film award in China). I could add more sources to increase notability, but figured it was enough for a keep per WP:ANYBIO #1 and the Mao Dun Literature Prize. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:38, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 14:17, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:HEY. As the article now indicates, his work won the Mao Dun Literature Prize, then was adapted into a film that took Best Film at the Golden Rooster Awards. WP:AUTHOR is met in spades (criteria 1/3/4, plus the GNG). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:29, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, kudos to Green Cardamom for doing such a nice job on the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Green Cardamom has indeed

shown why this should be kept. I wish to withdraw my earlier objection.--Zananiri (talk) 20:23, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If he won a literary award and his book was adapted into a film that then won a film award, he is clearly notable enough.ReformedArsenal (talk) 19:16, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article has been significantly cleaned up by Green Cardamom. Secondary sources demonstrate notability. Subject has won a major literary award, the Mao Dun Literature Prize, and a film adapted from one of his novels has won a major film award, the Golden Rooster Awards.--xanchester (t) 19:23, 24 October 2012 (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.