Deletion of Suzi Gablik

Comment: WP:ANYBIO - art history/criticism fields) - |whiteout
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOW)

Comment: Easily passes both  and . 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUTHOR||WP:ARTIST)

Comment: Passes  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 https://www.aaa.si.edu/collections/suzi-gablik-papers-16176/more-information 12.8 linear feet of documents, they wouldn't bother to catalogue and archive them
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:AUTHOR||WP:NEXIST)