Deletion of Julie Robinson (curator)

Comment: I see curators falling in between  and  (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 . The independent coverage of the exhibitions she curated certainly help establish notability to satisfy . I know |other stuff exists but seriously, other lousy stuff of questionable notability does exist. I think this is a safe keep
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ARTIST||WP:ACADEMIC||WP:ACADEMIC||WP:ARTIST||WP:OTHERSTUFF)

Comment: I' don't think that curator's should fall under  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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ARTIST)

Comment: 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 . 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV)

Comment: wrongful speedy, no efore. 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Bots (WP:B)