Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julie Robinson (curator)


 * 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. Keep, but a bit of a weak keep at this point in time, so I would recommend further discussion on the article talk page, giving those that expressed keep some time to improve the article, and a further look at a later date as to a need or not for a later reevaluation. -- Cirt (talk) 06:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Julie Robinson (curator)

 * – ( View AfD View log )


 * Queried speedy delete. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Queried by the page creator which is quite normal and doesn't normally stop a speedy deletion. Dpmuk (talk) 12:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Copied from Talk:Julie Robinson (curator) (Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:06, 18 May 2011 (UTC)):-
 * This page should not be speedy deleted because... --BlueThird (talk) 11:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Given that a number of Australian curators are already listed and are not the subject of dispute, there is clearly no reason why a curator, per se, can't be considered worthy of a Wikipedia entry. While Julie Robinson certainly isn't at the same level of public awareness as Betty Churcher or Brian Kennedy, her work is still significant, particularly in the field of Australian photography, which in my opinion is currently somewhat underrepresented on Wikipedia.
 * The two exhibitions mentioned in the first paragraph where clearly of importance within that context, and as soon as I have the opportunity I intend to add a page on Century In Focus. Very briefly, that was a three-month exhibition at one of Australia's most important public galleries, accompanied by a large-format book that was distributed by Thames & Hudson. Ms Robinson spent years working on it, as the head of a team of curators. As Sebastian Smee, himself a Pulitzer Prize winner, put it: "If you are at all interested in Australian photography, whether or not you are from SA, you will want to see this show, or at least get hold of the catalogue."
 * Dpmuk has mentioned elsewhere that "None of the sources are about her and there is no other indication of notability." I don't dispute that they are, in fact, about her work, but I don't believe that makes the page invalid. It was never intended to be an in-depth discussion of her personal history or background, but instead is meant to provide a way for people to find out more about her work, which, I'll reiterate, is certainly of importance. Exhibitions are an important part of our public culture – they inspire and educate – and as such they fully deserve to be written about.
 * There would obviously be no place for mention of the other exhibitions that Ms Robinson has curated in the page on Candid Camera or Century in Focus, so removing the page, while perhaps making Wikipedia more compliant and slightly tidier in dpmuk's view, will also remove what was always intended as a hub for people to learn more about art and photography in Australia. Personally, I don't know enough to add entries for all of the other exhibitions she has curated, but I'd like to think that, in time, they too will have their own pages, and the page currently in question will still be here to serve as a hub for further discovery.
 * Knowledge and education should always trump bureaucracy. BlueThird (talk) 11:02, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * weak keep wrongful speedy, no WP:Before. wp:Artist: "1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors; 4. The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition". it's not reasonable to expect that there would be biographical references about curators, but rather the references will be about their work. if this is the criteria, then speedy all the other (curators). Slowking4 (talk) 14:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I beg to differ (as the person who placed the speedy). They are not an artist - it is not there work, at least that's my interpretation of what they do, so I don't think that applies (although you may disagree).  If this had been one of the artists in the exhibitions then I'd agree that the references in this instance are enough to suggest notability and so enough to avoid speedy, however as the curator of the exhibition, I did not think that was enough.  Maybe I was wrong but that's no reason to question my integrity. Dpmuk (talk) 15:02, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Using A Century In Focus: South Australian Photography 1840s–1940s as an example, a team of curators spent two years drawing together a collection of 400 photos, the most recent of which had been taken 60 years before, by scores, possibly hundreds, of different photographers. Some of these were in a collection recently acquired by AGSA, but others were borrowed from galleries overseas. Some of the earliest photos of South Australia, for example, are held in Scotland. There would almost certainly have been some level of negotiation involved in arranging for the transfer of these photos, and for their insurance. It would be safe to assume that virtually all of the photographers involved were long dead, and provided no impetus for the exhibition. So, while the individual works are undoubtedly the creation of the photographers, the exhibition was very much the work of the curators. BlueThird (talk) 00:47, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment i opined you were wrong, nothing about intent or integrity. i just think it's better to work with the good faith editor here, rather than speedy (bitey). i also agree with Johnbod, there are a lot of curator bios here, some of which are not notable: this one is above average. took me five minutes to find all the exhibition catalogs. we need a better notability criteria for curators, they don't have google scholar for easy cite metrics. how about "multiple exhibition catalogs over a hundred pages, or exhibition chapbooks totaling over a hundred pages"? (i know quantity over quality). Slowking4 (talk) 18:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Accusing me of not carrying out WP:BEFORE seems like questioning my integrity to me. I've !voted below with a more detailed comment. Dpmuk (talk) 14:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * the inference i made is that since i found eight books, with a google books, added within five minutes, no before had been done. are you saying that you did a before, and did not find?; or found and speedied anyway? nothing personal, before is widely ignored, and even winked at by arbcom.Slowking4 (talk) 15:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Firstly, as far as I'm aware, Before applies to AfD nominations not speedies. I doubt anyone does before for an obvious garage band (and I doubt people would expect them to) but in less obvious cases some before is good practice and I did what I thought was a reasonable amount.  I clearly didn't put the right term into google books as I didn't find all the publications you list but I did find one or two of those and discounted them as establishing notability - they're publications by her not about her and are only slightly better than self-published.  In the lack of any sources about her I thought speedy was appropriate.  I'd also note that most of the keep votes here are based on some concept of her work establishing notability not the more normal method of establishing notability by having sources about her so I make no apologies for tagging for speedy.  In hind sight I may have been mistaken (as speedys are meant to be uncontroversial) but I think it was a perfectly reasonable mistake to make.  Dpmuk (talk) 16:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I think we are rather too lenient on curators and academics. But under current norms, she is a deal more notable than many curators, especially American ones, with articles. Johnbod (talk) 14:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * could you please explain how she meets a notability guideline? LibStar (talk) 23:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete: Senseless enumeration of jobs which even smacks of self-promotion. According to Notability (people), bios should give the reader a sense of how and why the person is significant in his field. This hasn't even been tried here. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You've heard of stubs? To start deleting things because they aren't yet very good – and I fully admit this isn't – would go against the whole ethos of Wikipedia. Everything has to start somewhere, and in the meantime something is better than nothing. The reason I put the page up in the first place was because I started to add to or improve the biographies of the photographers who featured in Candid Camera, a major exhibition at AGSA that I happened to see last year. Then I remembered about A Century In Focus, and started to wonder what else Robinson had worked on. It turned out to be a significant body of work, and as I said above, it seemed appropriate to put up something that allowed people to find out more about that. I'd obviously be delighted if someone else came along and improved the page. As for the suggestion that it "smacks of self-promotion"; that's risible. I'm quite sure that any curator at a gallery as important as AGSA would have done a far better job of this, certainly to the point where there wouldn't be questions on notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueThird (talk • contribs) 23:35, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not seeing any sources that indicate real in-depth coverage of this person to satisfy notability criteria. As per the comment above, this is basically just a list of jobs. --DAJF (talk) 23:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * She has had only one "job" since 1988. Curating exhibitions is (oddly) what curators do, and a large part of how their work and standing is assessed. Also writing published catalogues, of which she has a long list. But for us at AFD to judge the significance of a number of exhibitions we never saw, on the other side of the world for most of us, many before the internet really got going, is very difficult.  Also judging how much of the extensive coverage these exhibitions no doubt received in their day should be credited to the curator. I can only repeat that by the standards normally set here for curators, she passes.  Google search on her name is not the right test here. Johnbod (talk) 02:44, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll add to Johnbod's comment. I've pointed this out before, but since I've formed the distinct impression that there are people here who are voting according to their prejudices, without bothering to read the arguments, it probably needs to be said again. Century In Focus is entirely a curator-created exhibition – it simply could not have happened without, in fact, a team of curators, which was led by Julie Robinson. It was on display for three months at one of Australia's most important public art galleries. A hefty catalog was published, and a Pulitzer Prize-winning art critic said at the time: "If you are at all interested in Australian photography, whether or not you are from SA, you will want to see this show, or at least get hold of the catalogue." (I've added the quote to the article, and a page for Smee. For now, it's just a stub, and I'm assuming, of course, that winning a Pulitzer goes some way to establishing notability.) There is no doubt at all that at least some of the exhibitions Robinson has curated are notable, and if a work is notable, and part of a volume of work likely to be of similar standard, then in my opinion the curator is too. I'll also reiterate that if every new page has to be perfect from the start, Wikipedia might as well be sealed in a capsule right now. BlueThird (talk) 06:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep It's been suggested to me that I should register a formal vote, though I'm sure someone would have guessed. BlueThird (talk) 06:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. I see curators falling in between WP:ARTIST and WP:ACADEMIC (and work needs to be done to amend those notability guidelines to explicitly include curators). Sources that help establish the notability of an artist in an exhibition also help establish the notability of the curator of that exhibition. Robinson's curatorial record, her publishing record and her affiliation with the University of Adelaide I believe establishes her notability per WP:ACADEMIC. The independent coverage of the exhibitions she curated certainly help establish notability to satisfy WP:ARTIST. I know other stuff exists but seriously, other lousy stuff of questionable notability does exist. I think this is a safe keep.  freshacconci  talk talk  11:42, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Also note that WP:ARTIST does list "scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals" under the notability requirements. I'd say curators count as "other creative professionals". I'd say point number 4, "The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums" applies here. I may just be WP:BOLD and add curator to that list.  freshacconci  talk talk  11:48, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Good idea. I think there are more specific film-trade criteria somewhere. Johnbod (talk) 11:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep I support the inclusion of curators in WP:ARTIST, and there's certainly verification. I also think this is a borderline keep based on sources provided via the GNG, but I grant that argument seems more a stretch.  --joe deckertalk to me 14:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Curators can be notable and create notable exhibitions, catalogs, books and enhance our range of perceptions concerning an infinite array of material. She seems notable to me...Modernist (talk) 14:39, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * could you please explain how she meets a notability guideline? LibStar (talk) 23:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * She's an expert in her field and clearly a notable personage in the Australian art world, here's a review of her John Cage show here's a review of the 2004 Adelaide Biennial . Perfectly valid to cite these here by the way...Modernist (talk) 19:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That's actually by an American curator with a similar name. BlueThird (talk • contribs) 00:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * not to mention a blog site that wouldn't count as a reliable source. LibStar (talk) 00:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's irrelevant here anyway, but as confirmed by reliable source, it being a blog site doesn't automatically mean that it's not a reliable source. BlueThird (talk) 00:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * this clearly falls into a non reliable source. as per WP:RS. LibStar (talk) 00:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't be invalid to include that on the main page – RealTime is a nationally distributed Australian arts magazine. Printed, not just online. Hope you won't mind me not posting it, though, I've got some trouble on my talkpage.
 * No problem - I'll add the Real Time link...Modernist (talk) 14:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep This curator has led the creation of a major exhibition. PRL42 (talk) 15:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete simply being a curator in a major art gallery does not grant automatic notability. she lacks third party indepth coverage about her achievements. most coverage simply confirms she has worked on exhibitions. LibStar (talk) 01:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. I' don't think that curator's should fall under WP:ARTIST as it's not immediately obvious how much input they've had to an exhibition etc which is distinctly different from the artists themselves.  As other's have said there is a lack of third party in depth coverage about her and so she does not appear to meet our notability guidelines. If any of the sources gave some critical discussion of the curatorial aspects of the exhibitions (e.g. the choice of photos or the layout), rather than simply stating she curated them, then I think that would go some way to showing notability but they do not appear to do so.  I have done good faith searches but with such a common name and not being an expert in this area it's possible I've missed some searches so I will happily reconsider my !vote if new, relevant, sources are found by others. Dpmuk (talk) 14:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It is indeed difficult, but she has done a number of large overview photographic exhibitions where one can reasonably presume the degree of curatorial input in choice etc to have been relatively high. Only stuff from the most recent years can be expected to leave much trace on the internet. Johnbod (talk) 14:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak keep after assessing the above debate. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. I have carefully reviewed the sources that have been added to the article. Not one analyzes the subject of this article at all--there are no secondary sources on her. They do not amount to the "Significant coverage" required by WP:SIGCOV. All argumentation on this page about how curating may or may not be being given short shrift cannot overcome the fact that the subject is not notable. Abductive  (reasoning) 06:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.