Deletion of M. J. Kang

Comment: the article has been substantially improved since nomination and has references to reliable sources including The Toronto Star, Globe and Mail and National Post and so passes . Notable awards and reviews also pass  " has received significant critical attention
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:CREATIVE)

Comment: I grant that nothing here is a particularly strong  pass as JPL points out just above me, but that completely misses the point: what she ''does'' have is a credible  pass as a ''playwright''. Dora nominations (the ''exact'' literal equivalent of a Tony Award, once you realize that "they're less notable just because ''I've'' never heard of them" is not a thing) ''do'' count as a potentially valid notability claim — the thing being, just as with many film awards, that the public-face categories (actors, directors and writers) are generally much more likely to have quality reliable source coverage about them than the behind-the-scenes ones (lighting, costume design, etc.) do. So it's not exactly true that "most Dora winners don't have articles" — the truth is that it depends on the category, just the same way as the actors and directors and screenwriters in a Genie Award or Canadian Screen Award article are much more likely to actually be blue links than the costume designers and cinematographers are. The actors and playwrights from a Dora nominations list ''are'' more likely to have Wikipedia articles as a rule, and for any class of topic there's always a distinction between whether similar people ''do'' have articles or not and whether they ''can'' have articles or not — we're missing articles about many members of the Parliament of Ghana and the Maine House of Representatives, too — but that doesn't mean they're not notable, it just means people haven't gotten around to getting them finished yet. Kang gets ''more'' than enough hits on a ProQuest search to repair this, as well: the sourcing problems here have less to do with coverage not existing, because it ''does'', and more to do with the fact that she appears to have taken a ''hiatus'' during the very time when we were starting to get stricter about sourcing articles properly. So she's not non-notable, she was just "out of sight, out of mind" for a while. This is entirely repairable, I'll take a stab at it right now
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NACTOR||WP:NAUTHOR)