Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert E. Hawkins (photographer)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. WP:VERIFY is a non-negotiable policy and this article fails it. If suitable sources are found, then the article can be re-created. Ty 02:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Robert E. Hawkins (photographer)

Robert E. Hawkins (photographer) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Article is very brief and contains mostly unsourced information. Such as "believed to be born in NY" and "what happened to his large collection of photographs he took". If he was famous like a Henry Talbot lets say people would have known what pictures he took and where they were. This article seems to be about a man who took random pictures in Cleveland for himself. Doesn't seem notable. The address on the bottom of the article seems tacky as well. UWMSports (talk) 16:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

  • delete There simply is not enough information about his accomplishments. What companies have his photos in their collections? It is possible that his collection is missing. That does happen (happened to a lot of artists killed during WWII for example), but normally there would be more information about why the collection vanished. (Roodhouse1 (talk) 18:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC))
  • Delete. Much unverified data in the article. No independent reliable sources to indicate notability per WP:BIO (I did a bit of Google searching but did not find anything relevant). Nsk92 (talk) 19:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's very nice that ClevelandMemory.org is making these photos accessible, but appearance on non-notable website does not grant someone notability. There seem to be no sources presented or even available. Fails WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 20:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. The #1 Google hit for 'Robert E Hawkins photographer' is this Wikipedia article, which is never a good sign. As it stands, the article is not very helpful to our readers, since it has so little information, and most of what there is is unsourced. EdJohnston (talk) 21:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Verifiability is an issue for this article which does not cite any reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 22:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep The Cleveland Memory Project: Virtual Cleveland History is an online gallery of images at Cleveland State University. It displays more than 450 of Hawkins' photographs. I think we can accept that Hawkins was a photographer given that his photographs are in the special collections of a university. Anything else that's controversial and unsupported can be removed from the article without deleting it. Fg2 (talk) 01:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is questioning the fact that he was a photographer. The issue is notability, as required by WP:N or WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 01:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
His work is in the special collection of a university museum. I think that establishes it. Fg2 (talk) 02:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
No, it doesn't. Read the WP:N and WP:BIO guidelines. To be notable, the subject needs to be sufficiently widely covered in substantial detail by independent sources. Having one's work exhibited in a single local museum is certainly not enough. Nsk92 (talk) 04:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - I've taken pictures of different landmarks and I'm far from notable. Article is poorly written with no real sources and I agree with the nominator. The address is really lame. -GoHuskies9904 (talk) 04:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - If no one else chimes in on this within the next couple hours I propose a speedy delete due to the overwhelming vote toward delete. -UWMSports (talk) 18:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Very Strong Keep - Robert E. Hawkins photographs are available online, sold on other sites like ebay and are very well known in archive circles. I researched him with the help of a Cleveland State University archivist. He is very noteable. This needs to stay on wikipedia. In all honesty in all my years of using wikipedia, this is the strongest I have felt about an entry needing to stay on wikipedia. Please consider this when you choose to keep or delete the article. --Josh (talk) 04:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
It is also worth noting that he was one of the main photographers of the Cleveland Tower City during its construction and his photos of that are very much saught after by archivists. I ask that before a decision is made that someone knowledgable in the field weighs in on the topic. --Josh (talk) 04:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Then offer a plan to expand the article and make it noteworthy. The article is terrible right now and makes it seem like the photographer is not notable at all. -UWMSports (talk) 18:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. All these are general WP:IKNOWIT and WP:ILIKEIT arguments that are not worth much without supporting evidence. You need present verifiable evidence from reliable sources, per WP:V and WP:RS, to back up these claims. Nsk92 (talk) 18:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Just in case, I did an Ebay search with zero hits[1]. You say that his photographs are available online. Where exactly? The only place I could find is the EL given in the article[2]. Is there anything else? Nsk92 (talk) 18:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
First off, he didn't go by Robert E. Hawkins, he went by R.E. Hawkins. Also I was unable to find the pictures on eBay at this moment as well. They honestly were on there this fall when I created the articles, they were in a shop section, more than one of them actually. --SportsMaster (talk) 22:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Please note this, from a book. [3] For sale [4]--SportsMaster (talk) 22:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - Again, Josh, what's your plan? Just because he took some pictures that are being sold as postcards doesn't make him notable. Millions of photographers and videographers create work but aren't notable. --UWMSports (talk) 03:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep for historical interest, but more sources would be nice. Johnbod (talk) 19:04, 22 May 2008 (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.