Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julie Tremble


 * 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)  CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   16:41, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Julie Tremble

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:RS Zazzysa (talk) 11:20, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:28, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:28, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:28, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:29, 12 March 2017 (UTC)


 * This may be one of those cases where we have an accomplished individual who just falls short, at least for now. The CALQ award at the Rendez-vous du cinéma québécois is a fairly big deal, here. Of course she got quite a lot of coverage because of Dominic Gagnon's allegedly racist Of the North (a film/controversy that might merit an article) in her status as head of the Vidéographe collective (which could also merit an article). But in terms of her solo film and art work, she hasn't (yet) received the sort of significant exhibition or coverage that our guidelines require. Weak delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:38, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually even Vidéographe falls short: the GNews hits do all seem related to the controversy over the Gagnon film.... Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:30, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, there are plenty of scholarly hits for Vidéographe as it's one of the first video access centres in North America. For example there's an essay about Vidéographe in the book Video re/View: The (best) Source for Critical Writing on Canadian Artists' Video.  freshacconci  talk to me  20:47, 12 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment On Tremble's website there's a link for her cv but I wasn't able to download it. I was thinking there may be sources listed that don't necessarily show up on a google search. Unfortunately, Tremble is like so many people in the Canadian/Quebec art world, doing tons of things for organizations and other artists, but for her it's difficult to establish notability per Wikipedia standards. A few good sources about Tremble herself would suffice.  freshacconci  talk to me  18:15, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I was able to find the CV from the gallery website directly: []
 * Delete per nominator. 2001:569:70DD:7500:39EA:19D8:DF90:EF4D (talk) 19:43, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 *  Delete  The article maybe Wikipedia worthy but certainly not at this time due to lack of coverage as mentioned by or it could be userfied. Zazzysa (talk) 08:15, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Just a reminder that your nomination is your !vote.  freshacconci  talk to me  14:00, 13 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Sources do not demonstrate notability as an artist. The ones I found were very minor or about her role as director of Videographe. Nothing found regarding her being included in permanent collections. Note that Google might try to route you to the similarly named artist Julie Tremblay. Delete 198.58.158.1 (talk) 08:22, 14 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. Already adequately sourced. Several other sources testify to her notability.--Ipigott (talk) 10:41, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Ipigott.♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:05, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep: She's mentioned in a number of French Canadian magazines in newspapers in the past several years. --LauraHale (talk) 16:27, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems to cross the threshold to me. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 17:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. She passes GNG. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:21, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. I believe Tremble passes notability requirements for a number of reasons. I want to first state that I am deeply sympathetic to the article subject and the article creator. As a Canadian and a member of the rather small Canadian art community, I fully understand the difficulty of establishing notability to current Wikipedia standards. Much of this falls under systemic bias, something that affects Tremble thrice, as a Canadian on an American website, as a Francophone in the English-language Wikipedia, and of course as a woman. There is also a systemic bias at work as a Québécoise within majority English Canada. I address systemic bias below. Please also note, as full disclosure, that although there may be a six degrees of separation at work here – I can only assume Tremble and I know some of the same people – I do not know Tremble personally, have never met her, and have never seen her artwork in person. Please excuse the length of this rationale.


 * 1. I believe Tremble easily passes WP:ARTIST. Her work has been exhibited within Canada and internationally, and in media festivals internationally. One work, BMP 37093 appears to have had some impact, with a number of showings and reviews. Please note that being in permanent collections is not a requirement for WP:ARTIST but is rather one of several possible criteria. This is something that falls under systemic bias, as durable and larger-scaled works in museum collections favour older, white, male artists. The CALQ award at the Rendez-vous du cinéma québécois is significant. By itself, passing WP:ARTIST is not enough.


 * 2. However, I believe Tremble passes WP:GNG based on French language reviews of her work, the Nathalie Bachand essay, and the catalogue essays for Galerie du Nouvel-Ontario, Art Gallery of York University and Université de Montréal. Gallery and museum initiated essays by themselves cannot be used to establish notability. However, in the context of the reviews this helps push the article past the WP:GNG threshold. This is the second instance of systemic bias at play. Within the world of Canadian and Québécois art, with a smaller pool of artists, critics and places of exhibition, it is necessary for such things as grants and tenure at universities to build up a profile of exhibitions at artist-run centres and regional museums, where the main source of written references would come from within the individual institutions. Per current policies this is a grey area for WP:RS, as the curator, the person who chose the artist for the exhibition, is writing about that exhibition, or a guest writer is invited by the institution to write something that is then published by that institution. This creates circular referencing that is problematic but mostly unavoidable. It is the reality of the Canadian art world and is necessary in order to establish notability in Canada. Therefore, I believe the reviews (which are completely independent of the artist, curator and galleries), combined with the essays pass WP:GNG. If it were only catalogue essays, I would not make this argument.


 * 3. Finally, Tremble's association with the Dominic Gagnon incident provides the most RS coverage. By itself, this would fall under WP:BLP1E and possibly WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTINHERITED. However given the wide coverage, it is a significant sources of RS. In combination with the reviews, catalogue essays, awards and exhibition record, it resolves any WP:BLP1E issues and the sources can stand on their own, which again, in this context, are significant.


 * In summary: individually, these three points would probably not be enough. Point number two is enough for WP:GNG but it would be weak. The three together, satisfying WP:ARTIST, WP:GNG and overcoming possible WP:BLP1E, I believe allows this article to easily pass WP:GNG overall.  freshacconci  talk to me  18:22, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. There is sufficiently broad coverage of the subject by different sources, even if they do not go into great depth, to establish notability. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:06, 17 March 2017 (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.