Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karina Grundy

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' - Peripitus (Talk) 09:05, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Karina Grundy[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. gets zero gnews hits which you would expect at least one. gbooks has a mere 5 hits [1], 2 of which are the LLC books based on wikipedia. the emerging photographer award is hardly a notable award nor a top photography award. LibStar (talk) 14:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I want to err on the side of caution, If the awards she has received are from nationally recognized sources then fine else, there is not enough to support WP:Notability criteria.-- CrossTempleJay talk 16:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

it is not a nationally recognised award. merely an award from a city's newspaper. LibStar (talk) 07:43, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:55, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; no detailed references about this person so WP:BIO isn't met. The only award the article lists her has having been awarded was from a city-specific newspaper. Nick-D (talk) 08:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:38, 20 May 2011 (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.