Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lily Klee

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. The consensus is to retain the page for further development. (non-admin closure) Andrew🐉(talk) 09:12, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lily Klee[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Had been deproded with the reason of "no urgency" and "should be merged" w/o proposing a merge - Apart from being the wife of Paul Klee no signs of WP:GNG or WP:NMUSICIAN CommanderWaterford (talk) 14:14, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 14:14, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 14:14, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:28, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Paul Klee. I could imagine that there is a borderline case for her notability: I don't have access to Große Frauen der Weltgeschichte. Tausend Biographien in Wort und Bild. If there really is a significant biographical entry of her in that book, she might meet WP:GNG with just one additional good source. (Even the Tate entry is not too bad.) For the time being, this might well be merged since there is currently only one paragraph on the marriage in Paul Klee's article. Modussiccandi (talk) 15:50, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delay and wait for more research. Before deleting, I would like to continue adding research to the article about Lily Klee, I started with a base translation from the German and will now start looking for more sources. As stated in arthistoricum.net, " Lily Klee’s significance for her husband has largely been underestimated or even outright ignored in scholarly literature. For a long time, research on Klee and especially the publication of his collected letters has focussed on men. Only in recent years, gender-specific reappraisals have increasingly gained attention.Nowadays we are more aware of the limits of the artistic individual „Klee“ and look further into the life and work of the modern artist’s wife." In the small bit I have read about her, it seems her impact on his career is understated: from her work to help the couple emigrate from Nazi Germany, to securing his collections after his death. I'd like to continue looking to improve both his article to include more information about her influence and hers to expand the research. Snowviola (talk) 17:27, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in light of Snowviola's commitment to improve this article, though she should probably be careful not to phrase her comments in a way that might give people an opportunity to throw the ol' WP:OR cudgel her way. I will add that my reason for not starting a Merge proposal myself is that even with the article's current state, I could at best have given it a half-hearted endorsement – to me, embracing a somewhat laxer interpretation of all things WP:N does become a valid approach if the subject of an article can offer both a base level of notability and the advantage of having been dead and not a self-proclaimed "entrepreneur" for more than seventy years. AngryHarpy‍^talk 17:47, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I hope that you understand that we are not nominating articles which might (or might not) be in the future in some way demonstrate notable. If there is some impact on his career we can merge it to his article but the article on its own needs to be deleted. CommanderWaterford (talk) 14:47, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm a little confused by your first sentence, did you perhaps mean to say something like accepting, instead of nominating? Nevertheless, there's obviously some difference in personal philosophy here and we'll probably not reach a common ground, which is perfectly fine. To me, compared to something like an article about YouTube's Hottest New Funny Prank Compilation Channel of the week or such, the rather diminished odds of this article falling into a state of shameful disrepair and the fact that no casual observer could conceivably take its existence as a reason to think any less of the project in general provide enough additional justification for me to oppose deletion. This may still close as Merge due to it being the option that's both safe and lets everyone save face, but personally, I see no reason to jump the gun. It would, of course, be extremely helpful if Snowviola could add at least part of the promised additional sources to the article before April 10. AngryHarpy‍^talk 17:13, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Lily Klee might or might not be notable as a musician on her own merits, but she is notable as wife of Paul Klee, in which capacity she is mentioned in numerous books and articles (some already cited in the article; others revealed by a quick search of Google books). In that latter case, the situation seems similar to that of Elsa Einstein or Anna Maria Mozart, whose notability is not in question. Furius (talk) 18:20, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask how this view can be reconciled with WP:NOTINHERIT, an argument to be avoided at AfD? Relationships with notable persons are never enough to merit an article. The wives of Einstein and Mozart may well be notable in their own right, but certainly not because of whom they married. If Lily Klee does not meet the specific notabality guidelines for biographies, the amount of coverage on her is the deciding factor. Modussiccandi (talk) 18:43, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — As mentioned by others, I think Lily Klee’s achievements and life were notable enough to deserve their own page. However, I also do agree with User: AngryHarpy that this article needs to be beefed up with additional credible sources sooner, rather than later. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 21:07, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, merges can be proposed without using the AFD process. —Kusma (𐍄·𐌺) 08:32, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not too strongly against a merge, by the way, but I don't much see the point of going to AFD for this: the title is obviously going to be a suitable redirect, so there seems to be no need for any use of the delete button here. —Kusma (𐍄·𐌺) 11:59, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, can one of the "keepers" above actually say how Lily Klee meets WP:ANYBIO? being a piano teacher, any awards/significant awards? nope, spouse of a notable artist? nope, parent of a theatrical director? nope, this looks like an example of WP:NOTINHERITED. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Coolabahapple I totally agree although I am missing your vote. None of the KEEP Voters could explain in which way the subject meets Wikipedia:Notability (people). CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:20, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as the keeper of her late husband's legacy, she took an obscure artist, and made him a regular of varying exhibits at world-class museums such as the Metropolitan Museum of Art; for a while in the 1980s-1990s, there was a different special solo exhibit every single year. Lily created Paul Klee as we know him. I would compare her to Einstein's second wife, Elsa Einstein. Bearian (talk) 21:21, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearian - and you surely can base your assumptions with reliable sources, don't you ?! CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:03, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, reading the above discussion gave me an aneurysm, but I do think that this person passes WP:GNG, though the language used is far too flowery and it reads like a puff piece. Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:17, 11 April 2021 (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.