Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rose Hartman

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) –Davey2010^Talk 00:21, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rose Hartman[edit]

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

Non-notable photographer lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 03:18, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rose Hartman wikipedia does not need to be deleted, there are more than enough references and proof of this person existing and being a real author and photographer Brazil201 (talk) 03:48, 31 October 2016 (UTC)Brazil201[reply]
Keep. A very quick search finds a recent documentary film about her; multiple exhibitions of her work, including internationally; and a New York Times review of one of her books[1]. Help is required to assist this new editor to develop the article fully. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:36, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:47, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:47, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:47, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: NYT 2012 review of her book, many other sources, etc. Notable. Thanks, @Espresso Addict:, for helping a newby editor. PamD 17:37, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Needs work, and much better sourcing, but there is adequate indicia of notability here. Montanabw^(talk) 07:09, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are quite enough sources that shows her notability and passing WP:CREATIVE. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 13:33, 6 November 2016 (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.