Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily Hall Tremaine


 * 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. ✗ plicit  14:23, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Emily Hall Tremaine

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Wealthy woman collects art, publishes society magazine. That's the content presented here in all of two lines. Not notable, fails WP:GNG. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:23, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United States of America. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:23, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep She owned one of the "greatest 20th Century art collections" and was known as a collector . Oaktree b (talk) 14:35, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * And her collection of papers is kept by the Smithsonian. Oaktree b (talk) 14:36, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Her husband, Burton did, according to that source. And it was cited as 'one of the finest' not 'greatest'. Is a wealthy art collector notable? No, by no means necessarily so. Show me a WP guideline that says having your papers in the Smithsonian/Bodleian or other library confers notability and I'll gladly strike the nomination. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:42, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sources in article seem enough but there's also, from 1984 NYT: "ART VIEW; A COLLECTION THAT BREATHES THE SPIRIT OF MODERNISM": Emily Hall Tremaine made her first serious art acquisition in 1936: Braque's 1927 painting The Black Rose,. From this estate sale article on the NYT , it definitely makes clear that it was a pretty equal between husband and wife collecting it but it was his estate since he died after she did: Widely regarded as one of the best collections of 20th-century art in the United States ... In the late 1980's, however, they decided that at their deaths, the major objects would be sold, with the proceeds going to charities.. There's also many more hits in proquest etc about her, their collection, a few more obits, and the foundation named after her. Skynxnex (talk) 15:31, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. This doesn't seem like a nomination based off policy. A proper WP:BEFORE would've been effective here. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 16:02, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment A peer-reviewed paper about her: . I'm almost certain we have notability. Oaktree b (talk) 17:52, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - I improved the article some. As noted above by Skynxnex, the foundation was named after the subject and she started the renowned collection before she married her husband. Notability is clearly shown in the sources. Meets WP:GNG and passes WP:BASIC. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 22:27, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep It seems like the nomination is based on a personal judgement about what is/is not important. The page meets Wikipedia guidelines and there are actually are a lot of people who think collectors and collections can be worth reading about, hence the sources. BuySomeApples (talk) 04:38, 15 June 2022 (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.