Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hannah Black


 * 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:09, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Hannah Black

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

does not meet noteability critera, possibily should be footnote on dana schultz page Loudstrawberry (talk) 19:23, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2020 July 19.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 19:35, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:25, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:25, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:25, 19 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep There is plenty of material on Black that has nothing to do with Schutz. This is not a case of WP:ONEEVENT where someone is only notable for, say, initiating a debate about a painting. Black is notable as an artist in her own right. Vexations (talk) 21:49, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 22:26, 19 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep I was surprised this was up for deletion. She's obviously notable with her performances taking place at MoMA, the Los Angeles Museum of Contemporary Art and Institute of Contemporary Arts in London. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:27, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable significant artist with plenty of independent 3rd-party coverage.  --Lockley (talk) 23:00, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: Baffling nomination, there are lots of reliable sources in the article. — Toughpigs (talk) 01:11, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep Very easily meets WP:GNG, as evidenced by the various sources already present in the article. -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - Flawed nom. The nominator had only made two edits prior to this AfD nom. They obviously were not informed about reliable sources, and doing a BEFORE search. Netherzone (talk) 18:38, 22 July 2020 (UTC)


 * 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.