Talk:Julie Robinson (curator)

This page should not be speedy deleted because...

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)

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC) Julie Robinson (curator) → Julie Robinson –

• The current Julie Robinson page is purely for disambiguation. BlueThird (talk) 09:47, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. I've just tagged the curator article for A7 and even if it is kept I doubt this person would be the primary topic - would need a full discussion. Dpmuk (talk) 09:59, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Refactored - The above was copied from the requested moves page where I opposed this being done as uncontroversial as given the other uses I think it needed discussion. Although I think I'll probably oppose I've not researched it enough to actually !vote in the move discussion hence I've stricken the above. Dpmuk (talk) 12:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
• That speedy delete was challenged, so I changed it into an AfD. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose you haven't explained why you dislike the disambiguation page. 65.95.13.213 (talk) 04:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
  • It's not that I dislike the disambiguation page. I'm all for it, and would certainly agree with adding a reference to a disambiguation page on this one, once the move has been made. But it seems entirely sensible to me to have a page for the only entry that's currently for someone unambiguously called Julie Robinson at the address http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julie_Robinson and have the disambiguation page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julie_Robinson_(disambiguation). If someone else more notable comes along with a claim to that exact address, I'd happily support her taking this page, too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueThird (talk • contribs) 11:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
    • You haven't explained why this Julie Robinson is more commonly known as Julie Robinson over all the other choices. Even if this is the only person with this exact name with an article, doesn't mean this person is the only one known by this exact name, or that she is the one who is most commonly found to use this exact name. 65.95.13.213 (talk) 06:32, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. She's certainly not the primary topic. In fact, I'm not even sure she's notable enough for an article at all. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
  • So, Necrothesp, let's get this straight. You wrote an article on a woman whose crowning achievement seems to be that she ran a pottery company for something a bit over a year before World War II, with her husband, and yet you doubt the notability of a woman who has curated at least nine exhibitions over a period of 20 years at one of Australia's most important art galleries and continues to do so? Should I remind you that four years later your article only has one reference, no notes and no external links?
    • That woman has an article in the Dictionary of National Biography, the standard academic reference work of notable people in British history! In any case, I'm not nominating the article on Julie Robinson for deletion. I am rather amazed that you're petty enough to scan the hundreds of articles I've written and choose one to comment on merely in an attempt to discredit my opinion! -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:42, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
      • I'm still trying to get the hang of how everything works behind the scenes here, since I find this whole incident such a bewildering waste of time and energy and want to make sure that I don't get involved in anything like it again. So I visited your user page and looked at two or three articles (one of the others being staff clerk). Seems that I struck lucky, if you can call it that. And since I ended up even more bewildered, I commented on it. BlueThird (talk) 23:23, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
        • this is what passes for due process around here; can't avoid it. shrugable. i'm not surprised, how many times have you seen votes disparaged, based on previous edits. i would congratulate you on the good work. i don't know if it's petty, but it dosn't advance the argument. my experience is that order in the disambig is a non-issue; why fight about it? Slowking4 (talk) 16:01, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
      • Given how relentlessly anti-egalitarian British society remains, I don't see that an entry in the DNB or ODNB, in itself, means all that much. I'd certainly hope that Wikipedia policy isn't that inclusion in either of those automatically equates to notability. BlueThird (talk) 00:37, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
        • Obviously somebody else who doesn't understand that the DNB is the generally recognised academic guide to notable people in British history. Certainly not all notable people are included (I'm frequently surprised at the omissions), but yes, I would certainly say that inclusion in the DNB is a good indicator of notability and that anyone listed in the DNB is worthy of an article here. And AfD results would generally support that view. Can I also suggest that you do not use editors' previous work in an attempt to discredit them - trust me when I say it looks petty and won't win you many friends on Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Improvements since AfD Discussion

Found and added quotes from an 850 word review of one of her exhibitions carried in Time. It's obviously highly significant in that compares two of Robinson's exhibitions that were held 14 years apart. Not about to remove the flag myself, but if anyone else feels that having one of the world's major magazines comment like that amounts to a cast-iron confirmation of notability… — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueThird (talk • contribs) 09:00, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Julie Robinson (curator). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110605230349/http://www.hss.adelaide.edu.au/art_history/ma/ to http://www.hss.adelaide.edu.au/art_history/ma/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110407202134/http://www.hss.adelaide.edu.au/art_history/teaching_staff/ to http://www.hss.adelaide.edu.au/art_history/teaching_staff/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:24, 29 April 2017 (UTC)