Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kimberley Starr

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. (non-admin closure) Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 02:09, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kimberley Starr[edit]

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

I believe she fails WP:AUTHOR. there is no significant peer recognition, coverage is limited, for example one source merely confirms she is a teacher. she only won emerging author category of a notable award. I would lean to keep if she has won other notable awards. LibStar (talk) 01:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The thing is, she won one of Australia's most notable literary awards. Even though there's not much out there about her, that one fact is backed up in the ALIA source and would be enough to keep the article via WP:ANYBIO. I truly wish that there was more sourcing out there, as normally I'd say that this is far too light but the award is evidently considered notable, which pushes her to notable status. Otherwise I'd say delete.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:48, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

do you have evidence of "one of Australia's most notable literary awards" so notable it is now discontinued due to the premier no longer supporting it! LibStar (talk) 10:44, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thing is, notability doesn't go away because something is discontinued or no longer offered. If it was considered to be notable at one point in time, it's still notable now. It's listed in several news articles as well as in multiple books, even a travel book. Also, the awards aren't really discontinued and people are now holding them independently. ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]) Do I necessarily agree with the rules that someone who has received little coverage outside of her winning a major award merits an article to herself? Not really, but it is one of the things that allows an article to be kept.Tokyogirl79 (talk)

she won an "emerging" category. that's like winning a category of the Logies but not the Gold logie. LibStar (talk) 11:31, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Tokyogirl79, winner of major award. ~~The book "has been taught as a secondary text", one of the criteria of notability.~~ Added additional sources. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:32, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

where in WP:AUTHOR does it say "The book "has been taught as a secondary text" is a criterion for notability? LibStar (talk) 11:24, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right, got author and book confused, stricken. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 03:53, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Is indeed notable for reasons already mentioned but the book should have its own article too. Special K(KoЯn flakes) 22:15, 17 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.