Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruth Hutton Ancker

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) GregJackP Boomer! 13:45, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Hutton Ancker[edit]

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

Non-notable person, fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO Joseph2302 (talk) 22:41, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not appear to meet the basic criteria for artists. No major critical works, no permanent collection in major museums. The main source is an obit, but the article omits to give a link or even say what publication. DGG ( talk ) 16:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ran her through a Proquest historic newspaper search (with and without maiden name). Washington Post ran an obit. Articles came up (not a lot, but still) showing that she exhibited in museums. She is in the files (World Cat) of major American museums, I don't even mean that they necessarily own anything she did, only that the have files of material in the research collections. The article appears to have been created by a mourner. I do see why Nom flagged this one. But she does seem to have been an artist of some note in her era.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:24, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier in career, while teaching at Cooper Union in the 30s, she was quoted in the papers as an authority on fashion. Of course, most papers form that era are not online. I added WAPo and NYTimes as sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:41, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are still a few facts that need references, but recent additions by E.M.Gregory establish notability. (Thanks!) LaMona (talk) 03:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has references that assert notability. --Racklever (talk) 08:10, 14 May 2015 (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.