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) Mz7 (talk) 01:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Therese Steinhardt Rosenblatt[edit]

Therese Steinhardt Rosenblatt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Non-notable artist with no documented accomplishments other than one 10-day exhibition at a non-notable gallery and a purchase by the Metropolitan Museum, which appears to have decommissioned the work. Lack of sources. Mduvekot (talk) 17:12, 7 February 2016 (UTC) Withdrawn by nominator[reply]

• Delete perhaps as I was basically uncertain considering the Metropolitan Museum of Art connection would be notable enough but that would actually only be it because my searches found nothing else aside from passing mentions. Notifying DGG for analysis. SwisterTwister talk 06:22, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It essentially like the athletes in the early Olympics. Getting there is enough. DGG ( talk ) 09:40, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:33, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep: The purchase and long-term exhibition at the Metropolitan Museum of Art are possibly just enough for WP:ARTIST criterion 4. Evidence of a second public collection would make this a firmer position, but allowance probably has to be made for the pre-web period. AllyD (talk) 08:42, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Does not matter the work was decommissioned by Metropolitan. Being there is the achievement notable by itself. Also, I am not sure we can really establish "non-notability" of gallery in 1945. For someone, active in pre WWII period, the amount of sources is quite enough. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 08:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I've added the NY Times reviewer comments on her show. Also she appears to have been important as a socialite of sorts, her debutante ball got big coverage in the Times. I've added that citation and a bunch of others substantiating the biographical details. I've also pared down the synthesis about the Met. While we know they bought her painting, it's not clear that it was exhibited for many years.--Jahaza (talk) 15:52, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Unless it is claimed that the Metropolitan Museum of Art had a lower standard in 1948 and that its purchases from that era carry no effective influence in present-day art world, any artist whose biographical details include such a purchase cannot be considered as non-notable. As for "lack of sources", between the nomination and this writing, ten inline references have been appended. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 16:16, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:56, 16 February 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.