Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suzi Gablik


 * 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) ~ Amkgp  💬  14:21, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Suzi Gablik

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject fails WP:NPROF, WP:NARTIST, and WP:ANYBIO. As the citations show, she publishes stuff but there's very little about her. Many of the citations fail WP:SPS and I don't count the Smithsonian links simply because she donated notes of hers. I could donate my notes to the Smithsonian, too. I don't think WP:GNG reaches this low. As this is another of 's works, we'll never know the possible extent of the CoI involved here. Regardless, the subject doesn't have a claim to notability. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 21:41, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 21:41, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 21:41, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 21:41, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 21:41, 20 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep There article doesn't do her justice. I just added https://www.jstor.org/stable/43155548. More to come. Vexations (talk) 22:21, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - Suzi Gablik is a very well known art historian. Unfortunately her article was created by a notorious COI editor, and is caught in the chain of deletions. I will try to improve it to reflect her notability. Netherzone (talk) 22:23, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * She received a National Lifetime Achievement Award for outstanding achievement in the visual arts by the Women's Caucus for Art. Netherzone (talk) 22:36, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Her work is in the collection of the Smithsonian Museum of American Art and the Black Mountain College Museum; and she has exhibited her work at the Museum of Modern Art, New York. I've added sections for these to her article with three citations. I think she clearly passes NARTIST between the notable award & the two collections. (Sorry for so many edits to this AfD.) Netherzone (talk) 23:02, 20 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Passes WP:AUTHOR by having a substantial body of work reviewed in reliable publications. The article seemed to lack any sense of proportion or of why a person might be notable, but what matters is whether sources exist, even if they weren't yet used. (Also, while I could probably give the Smithsonian 12.8 linear feet of documents, they wouldn't bother to catalogue and archive them.) XOR&#39;easter (talk) 22:26, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Author of seven books on art history, including the Thames & Hudson Magritte book. Easily meets GNG and likely also meets WP:NARTIST.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:07, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: The nominator's assertion that he could donate his papers to the Smithsonian is not accurate, unless he's accomplished in some field that I'm not aware of. The Archives of American Art is not a junk drawer. — Toughpigs (talk) 00:01, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Easily passes both WP:AUTHOR and WP:ARTIST. I would argue that anyone with three book reviews in the New York Times is notable regardless of what else there is, but in this case what else there is is plenty. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:08, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, (WP:ANYBIO - art history/criticism fields) - whiteout!!. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep "The Archives of American Art is not a junk drawer" Theredproject (talk) 17:00, 23 June 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.