Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ada Katz

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) buff bills 7701 01:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ada Katz[edit]

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

Non-notable wife of a famous artist. Natg 19 (talk) 18:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 23:33, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 23:34, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Notability is not inherited, but neither does marriage to a notable preclude notability. The New York Times felt she was notable enough to write a two page article about her in 2006; she has a a two page entry in the Dictionary of Artists' Models; and her papers are archived at the Smithsonian. She passes WP:GNG with flying colors. Pburka (talk) 13:42, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Pburka (talk) 13:47, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Pburka, yes, notability is not inherited, but in this instance, Ada Katz was an important part of Alex Katz's work, being his "muse", model-subject, so the numerous references to Alex invariably discuss Ada, along with numerous art magazines and publications. Ada Katz was discussed prominently in this NY Times article, and the NY Times says Ada was the subject of over 250 of Alex Katz's works. And more sources here. What's curious -- did not the lady get tired of sitting still while posing?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:54, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:34, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per above. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:08, 11 October 2014 (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.