Talk:Muriel Leung

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Poetry Low‑importance

	Poetry portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poetry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of poetry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoetryWikipedia:WikiProject PoetryTemplate:WikiProject PoetryPoetry articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women writers Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Feminism Low‑importance

	Feminism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

LGBT studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles

Women in Red: #1day1woman (2018)

This article was created or improved during the #1day1woman initiative hosted by the Women in Red project in 2018. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.Women in RedWikipedia:WikiProject Women in RedTemplate:WikiProject Women in RedWomen in Red articles

It is requested that an image or photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Notability[edit]

After searching for sources, it seems that the article's subject has published a book and some individual pieces, including an opinion piece syndicated across the LA area, but is very early in her career and does not have the required coverage or recognition to meet either WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG at this time. The "award" appears to be a competition to have a book published by that press. I have tagged the article for notability, and would appreciate other policy/guideline-based opinions. If the book is considered notable, then one possibility is to have an article about the book rather than the author. Bakazaka (talk) 18:13, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bakazaka (talk) I added some more sources! Did this help? Let me know! ~~cbratbyrudd (talk)

@Cbratbyrudd: I just left a note on your talk page as you left this, it looks like. Thanks for discussing here. The references you've added are helpful for establishing facts about the person, but they do not count toward establishing notability. Bios on the person's own school site or journal site or employer site are WP:PRIMARY sources. So are interviews (e.g. the Common source). Announcements of events or readings are not WP:SIGCOV. What the article needs is significant coverage of the subject in multiple, independent, reliable, secondary sources. The PBS source is the best source in the article, as it discusses the subject from a secondary perspective (in addition to the primary perspective). There are two reviews of her only published book, but that isn't enough for WP:AUTHOR, as one of them is a Publishers Weekly review that is typically discounted as promotional if the book is mostly unreviewed otherwise. If more reviews could be found, it might support an article on the book itself, though. Bakazaka (talk) 18:48, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bakazaka (talk) I am a little confused...I have been looking at WP:PRIMARY and I was under the impression that interviews are a primary source. For instance, in the notes section it states: "The University of Nevada, Reno Libraries define primary sources as providing "an inside view of a particular event". They offer as examples: original documents, such as autobiographies, diaries, e-mail, interviews, letters, minutes, news film footage, official records, photographs, raw research data, and speeches; creative works, such as art, drama, films, music, novels, poetry; and relics or artifacts, such as buildings, clothing, DNA, furniture, jewelry, and pottery.[2]" Let me know what you think. I am trying to get a clearer understanding of what is needed.

Also, to me, an interview does exactly this "They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on." What do you think?

Thus far there are about 4 interviews from various publications cited on her personal life, on Bone Confetti, and her academic studies/writing itself. Cbratbyrudd (talk) 22:39, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews without additional coverage are WP:PRIMARY. But sometimes there are, e.g., several paragraphs of analysis at the beginning of published interviews that can be considered secondary coverage, assuming they don't simply repeat the subject's supplied bio blurb. Again, primary sources can be used to establish some facts about the subject (secondary sources are still preferred), but they don't count toward notability. To use examples from this article: the Common interview is absolutely primary as it's just Q&A, and the NPR source at least has a bit of secondary perspective but is still mostly primary, as it relies on quotes from the subject. You've added a lot of facts to the article, which doesn't hurt, but there still isn't much in the way of sources about the subject that aren't interviews or routine announcements. That's the core notability issue. There's no doubt she has accomplished some interesting things, but it doesn't look like she meets the notability requirements yet. It may just be WP:TOOSOON. If she wins a Whiting Award or something, or if the LA Times and NY Times write profiles of her, that would obviously change things. Bakazaka (talk) 23:17, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bakazaka (talk) Ahh okay so I should be focusing on trying to find secondary sources! Got it! thanks for your help. Cbratbyrudd (talk) 23:24, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cbratbyrudd: Given our discussion about the importance of significant coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources, I'm not sure why you keep adding event announcements, passing mentions, interviews, and copies of her self-provided bio blurb from different places as sources. From what I've seen at past AfD discussions, if you keep adding sources that do not substantially discuss the subject or do not say what they are cited to support, editors are likely to see this as a WP:REFBOMB situation.

Additionally, please note that I have removed some sources that are apparently promotional (e.g. Apple podcast) or do not actually support claims to which they were attached. For example, in the claim about her MFA influence, you cited an interview in which the person she is interviewing talks about that influence on him, not on the article subject. This is a WP:BLP article, so please be especially careful. Bakazaka (talk) 02:44, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bakazaka (talk) when you made edits you removed the citation on her mentor. it clearly states such in the article i had listed previously. Cbratbyrudd (talk) 02:54, 5 March 2019 (UTC) http://weird-sister.com/2017/11/14/two-cities-fairy-tales-marathon-sprint-interview-muriel-leung/[reply]

@Cbratbyrudd: Bhanu Kipal is not mentioned in the interview at that URL. Kipal was mentioned in the source that I removed [1] but it was Kenji Liu claiming Kipal as an influence, not Muriel Leung, so the source did not support the claim you made. Bakazaka (talk) 03:00, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what you are referencing but the pronoun for Bhanu Kapil is she/her and I was referring the line:

“one example. Are there others?

ML: The works of Bhanu Kapil come to mind, the integrity of her vision and artistic practice, as well as that of my mentor at Sarah Lawrence College,” from the common article interview.

Also, just because I added primary sources does not also mean I did add secondary sources as well. I added at least 3 spotlights of her as an author as well as more interviews because they contributed further background. Because you wanted secondary sources I did the LA Review of Books article about notable LA poets and a buzzfeed article that listed her but you removed them. Cbratbyrudd (talk) 03:15, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cbratbyrudd: Not sure what your point is about the pronoun. If you think that the article should say that Leung sees Kapil as an influence, citing the Common ref (which was not the previous ref), that's fine, but that is a different claim than "During her MFA at Louisiana State University she was mentored by Bhanu Kapil", cited to an interview in which Kapil is discussed only by Kenji Liu, which is the text/cite I removed. You've also left out an important part of the above quote from the Common interview, which is that the next three words are "Cathy Park Hong", meaning that Cathy Park Hong was her mentor at Sarah Lawrence College. The sentence says nothing about Kapil as her mentor, or about LSU.

The LA Review of Books citation is still in the article, so I'm not sure what you're talking about there. The Buzzfeed source, which you tacked on to the end of a sentence that directly quoted the subject (and correctly cited the source of the quotation), only mentions the subject one time in a list of poets, and does not discuss the quoted line at all, so yes, I removed the Buzzfeed citation. Bakazaka (talk) 03:28, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bakazaka Cbratbyrudd Hi folks - this page still does not meet notability guidelines as listed on WP:AUTHOR. I think it should be considered for merging or deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.69.213.34 (talk) 00:00, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]