Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malcolm Warner

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. Courcelles 05:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Malcolm Warner

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

He seems to have an impressive resume, maybe he deserves a spot here. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:59, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep Probably an impressive guy, but impressive is not notable.--Paul McDonald (talk) 06:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I'm buying!--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:13, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The current version of the article does not make a strong case for his notability: an assistant curator doesn't seem like the sort of museum position that has "innate" notability, and the sourcing is minimal. The cited Glasstire interview[1] mentions that he was acting director of the Kimbell for 18 months and that a recent exhibition he curated got a nice writeup in TIME--however, he's not mentioned by name there[2]. There are more than 200 hits at Google Books [3] and more than 100 hits at Google News [4] including a number that cover him directly, such as [5][6][7] Probably enough here to support an article, but I'd be interested in other opinions.--Arxiloxos (talk) 06:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Add information: It should also be noted that Warner has authored or co-authored several books[8]; his The Victorians: British painting, 1837-1901 received a positive (albeit brief) review in The New York Times[9] and his co-authored James Tissot: Victorian life, modern love received a positive review from Cahners.[10] --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Whether or not an individual has an impressive resume or not is rather subjective and not applicable to this discussion. Additionally, whether an individual is "deserving" or not? This is not the place. The subject is an art curator and museum director and receives publicity accordingly. GHits about art exhibits and openings are appropriate and to be expected. Additionally any museum would be remiss in not reporting the employment status of a nonprofit executive employee, regardless of the identity of the individual. This does not equate to significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Cind.amuse 12:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Arxiloxos (talk) 16:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but clean up. Those favouring deletion have clearly never looked at Category:American curators, most of whom have far slimmer credentials. He has been an author of books for Yale UP & other top publishers, as well as many catalogues, & deputy Director of the Kimble is a senior position. The notability criteria for curators are the seniority of the positions they have held and the importance of the exhibitions they have curated, which are rightly or wrongly treated as "works" they have authored. He easily passes these, especially the latter. He is also frequently cited and his views discussed by other scholars, mainly on the Pre-Raphaelites and Millais in particular [11]. I have rejigged the text somewhat. Johnbod (talk) 21:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pending on going clean up. Ceoil (talk) 00:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Malcolm is the world's most important expert on Millais. He's also a very impressive curator. As you will gather from my use of his first name, I know him, so I am biassed to an extent, but he has written a significant number of impressive books on Victorian art. Paul B (talk) 10:15, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above...Modernist (talk) 12:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above particularly Johnbod. There are multiple reviews of his exhibitions and books . Here's an example excerpt from the Contemporary Review re the National Gallery Exhibition:

"The descriptions of the paintings by Malcolm Warner, assisted by other scholars, provide a model of the way to explain the symbolism and significance of works of art in a detailed but easily understood manner. Thus we are given a two-page essay on Holman Hunt's painting The Awakening Conscience (normally at the Tate in London) which shows how Hunt used the Thomas Moore Poem 'Oft in the Stilly Night' in this painting. We see a' fallen woman - a favourite Victorian theme - suddenly struck by a pang of conscience as her wealthy lover sings that Moore song. In a skilful manner Malcolm Warner shows all the intricate symbolism in the painting ranging from the dropped soiled kid glove forecasting the woman's ultimate fate to the few pieces of yarn on the floor suggesting the ravelled state of her soul."

His books, catalogues, and exhibitions have been reviewed not only by the NYT and Contemporary Review, but by The Spectator, Washington Post, Birmingham Post, New Statesman, Apollo, etc. etc. Voceditenore (talk) 12:00, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.