Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carrie Hawks

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 delete. So Why 12:45, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carrie Hawks

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

WP:BLP of an artist and designer, whose only stated claim of notability is that she got a project development grant in 2014. This is not based on any reliable source coverage about her -- of the three sources here, two are primary sources and one is a transcript of a Q&A interview on a podcast. As always, every person is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because she and her work exist -- she must be the subject of enough reliable source coverage to verify that she passes WP:CREATIVE for something. Bearcat (talk) 16:51, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:03, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:03, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep for now. Delete without prejudice to recreation if more sources become available. It appears that the the movie that the grant was intended to support has now been released. It has received some coverage, including the New York Times, which is a bit "thin". I've added a more substantial source to the article. There might be more sources, I'm still looking. Mduvekot (talk) 18:36, 22 August 2017 (UTC) Update: struck weak keep. I was unable to find any additional sources. It is probably WP:TOOSOON. Mduvekot (talk) 11:42, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep I think the NYT article along with the award makes her notable for WP:BLP — Preceding unsigned comment added by KindleReader (talk • contribs) 21:35, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. good nomination, as the artist's notability is not established by diverse reliable sources, nor museum collections, nor significant shows. Sources and notability are thin.104.163.140.99 (talk) 01:31, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:02, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly does not meet any of our guidelines for articles on artists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:56, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) 04:09, 6 September 2017 (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.