Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hubert Preston

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. WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Störm (talk) 21:58, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hubert Preston

[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)

Fails WP:NJOURNALIST. The whole article is based on one source, a book written as a tribute to the journalist, that has no ISBN number of any other identification. After looking through Google Books and some other services (including Worldcat) I can't find any accessible copies of this tribute, or much evidence it even existed (I doubt the page creator fabricated this source, but I can't find any copies of it). After performing a WP:BEFORE I can't find any reliable sources. The only sources I have found of the subject are via Newspapers.com; his name as a writer in small pieces for The Guardian. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 13:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 13:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 13:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 13:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per WP:Basic. He was a partner in Cricket Reporting Agency, and introduced the full page profile in Wisden, the Bible for cricket fans, as editor. Regularly still quoted. There won't be much SIGCOV from a sports reporter back then as that is an extremely modern thing starting in the 70s, a decade after his death.The article that nominator is questioning is in the Wisden 1961 edition, which is pre ISBN and was written by a recognised cricket writer Neville Cardus Davidstewartharvey (talk) 15:53, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As editor of Wisden Cricketer's Almanack, the most prestigious of all cricket publications, from 1944 to 1951 he is clearly notable. If his article doesn't currently have adequate citations (I haven't yet checked) then it should not be difficult to provide them. JH (talk page) 16:30, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. talk 16:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. talk 16:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable. For many years, one of the most influential people in world cricket. Johnlp (talk) 18:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has loads of coverage in independent reliable sources. Two that are not yet cited in the article are ISBN 9781408192245 and ISBN 9781408165270. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:49, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable as a cricket writer, lots of coverage too. Slightly odd nomination. StickyWicket (talk) 20:04, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Per all of the above --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per above. Editor of Wisden on its own would be enough. Nigej (talk) 17:30, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:37, 19 January 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.