Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jarrod Kimber

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. Randykitty (talk) 16:07, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jarrod Kimber[edit]

[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)

While Kimber won an award for his film, I cannot find significant coverage of him that would establish that he's notable by Wikipedia's standards; the article has been tagged for that issue for seven years without significant improvement. Huon (talk) 13:50, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:50, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:50, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:50, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:52, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is a bit of a mess, but as you say, he is co-creator of an award winning film and has been nominated for British Sportswriter Award for one of his books. Reviews of the his books say that he is "one of the most original cricket writers around"Guardian and that "Kimber's cricketwithballs blog invented a style that spawned an army of imitators who could never quite match him."Cricinfo review To me this qualifies as passing WP:AUTHOR. I'll try to tidy the article and include these links as refs. Spike 'em (talk) 12:57, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've tidied article a bit and added more refs. Spike 'em (talk) 17:01, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:33, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tend towards keep certainly by a straightforward reading of WP:AUTHOR I'm happy to keep the article. Kimber is well known and, I think, significant within his field and has produced a body of work which is recognised as solid. If my reading of AUTHOR is wrong then can someone ping me as I won't see responses to this otherwise. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:27, 18 December 2018 (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.