Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kit Kemp

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. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 15:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kit Kemp

[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)

The given sources do not show in-depth coverage of the subject herself. A BEFORE search gives me some interviews in low-profile sources and a good number of passing mentions, but there doesn't seem to be enough here for a standalone article. It also reads somewhat like a PR bio. Blablubbs ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:54, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Blablubbs ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:54, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Blablubbs ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:54, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Blablubbs ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:54, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to have received coverage in some major sources: NYTimes, The Times, Independent, Telegraph, DailyMail, short mention in Vanity Fair. (I did however also just see low-profile sources for the first few pages of Google). In addition to having received a (what I think counts here as a lower level) Order of the British Empire title, I think this is a keep – Thjarkur (talk) 10:21, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The NYTimes source is good, though I'm not sure it qualifies as in-depth coverage. I can't comment on the Times, because I don't have access. Independent is an interview, so very much suboptimal to establish notability, and the Telegraph source is mostly about her house, not so much about her. Daily mail is written in first person, so not independent coverage and essentially an advert. I agree that notability here can be considered borderline (and I'm not trying to question your keep vote), but combined with the PR bio aspect, I still think deletion is adequate here. Best, Blablubbs ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:58, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to meet the threshold as an author, with multiple independent reviews of her three books. Also press coverage per Þjarkur, above, as well as numerous additional magazine articles. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:51, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are no glaring issues in terms of notability in my mind, and also looks good in terms of sourcing and reference support.--Concertmusic (talk) 21:27, 3 December 2020 (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.