- 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. I'm not convinced this really meets notability guidelines, but the article is well written, and well referenced, and I certainly don't see any solid consensus to delete, so calling this a keep -- RoySmith (talk) 01:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Jennifer Hornyak
- Jennifer Hornyak ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Local references only; does not meet the WOP:CREATIVE standard of having works in the permanent collections of major museums.
Accepted at AfC nonetheless DGG ( talk ) 04:43, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - the coverage seems decidedly local and that which I could find myself constituted only one-line passing mentions. Nom is right about the lack of significant exhibitions and one of the significant claims to notability included in the article is that the subject's works have been hung nearby/next to the works of notable others. Doesn't work that way. Stalwart 111 05:03, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - Appears from list of exhibitions to meet
WP:Notability#Creative professionalsWP:Notability (people)#Creative professionals #4(b) (and possibly 4(c), although not enough info there to tell for sure). Is there some defined WP standard I've missed for "significant exhibition"? Paavo273 ( talk) 06:09, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- "Significant critical attention" would generally be enough to warrant a pass against
WP:GNG because such attention would likely constitute significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. I think that is there to account for instances of critical attention that are not "multiple" but are still attention from a single significant critical source. The "critical attention" in this case includes an article in the subject's local newspaper about an exhibition at a local gallery featuring, "over 25 local and international artists" with a passing mention of the subject. Hardly "significant" anything. The locations for her solo exhibitions are mainly local neighbourhood galleries or private establishments, not major national (or even regional) art galleries. The coverage mainly consists of articles about those exhibitions in local galleries. I think we need a lot more than that for an artist to meet either
WP:ARTIST or
WP:GNG.
Stalwart
111 06:37, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- Your analysis of 4(c) seems sound. What I was referring mainly to was Notability for creative professionals 4(b) which states, "[Person's work] has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition," my focus being on the substantial part and significant exhibition. Her particip. in group exhibitions is listed as including @ at least two notable Montreal venues. Whether these were substantial parts of significant exhibitions, I can't say for sure. If it's not in sourced coverage in the article text, it s/b.
- I see so many truly trivial WP articles that nobody ever looks at, it just seems a shame if people want to read about her and the article is gone. According to page view statistics, the article's been hit approximately 90 times just the first 1.5 month this year. I'd think something like at least half of those are from people wanting to learn about her as opposed to editors logging in to edit or check on changes.
Paavo273 (
talk) 07:26, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- That's not unfair and it's worth further consideration (and analysis of sources in particular). But there seems to be a couple of these articles, all the work of a single editor whose focus seems to be promoting local Canadian art in general rather than carefully selecting only those subjects that meet our guidelines before creating articles. In some instances, a more careful approach with regard to our guidelines would result in articles that are unlikely to be challenged. We certainly shouldn't be encouraging otherwise by accepting these articles at AFC before they are ready. It just creates an environment where new editors are bitten because they don't know better and aren't told better. I'm not seeing notability with what has been provided thus far but I'm always willing to be turned around. Stalwart 111 08:48, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- "Significant critical attention" would generally be enough to warrant a pass against
WP:GNG because such attention would likely constitute significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. I think that is there to account for instances of critical attention that are not "multiple" but are still attention from a single significant critical source. The "critical attention" in this case includes an article in the subject's local newspaper about an exhibition at a local gallery featuring, "over 25 local and international artists" with a passing mention of the subject. Hardly "significant" anything. The locations for her solo exhibitions are mainly local neighbourhood galleries or private establishments, not major national (or even regional) art galleries. The coverage mainly consists of articles about those exhibitions in local galleries. I think we need a lot more than that for an artist to meet either
WP:ARTIST or
WP:GNG.
Stalwart
111 06:37, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
I wrote on Jennifer Hornyak because she is one of about twenty contemporary artists who are household names across Canada. She has exhibited in Canada’s premier contemporary art gallery (our MOMA), the Musée d’art contemporain de Montréal (collected artists are not listed), as Montreal is Canada’s capital for the Arts, much like NYC in the US. Also her work and career are followed in St John’s, Halifax, Montreal, Kingston, Ottawa, Toronto, Calgary, and Vancouver through the top commercial contemporary galleries. I also agree with wikipedia’s preference for federal collections, but the National Art Gallery doesn’t list those included (in the collections section, of the 381 artists whose name begins with H, they name 26 of which only 5 are living), and you need to apply to the Canada Council for the Arts to be part of their collection. Finding critical reviews are also problematic because it’s primarily French in Montreal and English in Toronto with very little overlap. Also the prime English-language daily of Jennifer’s heyday, the mid-eighties, the Montreal Star has since folded, the online archives of the Toronto Globe and Mail (with English Canada’s sole full-time art reviewer) start in 2004, and I need subscriptions to research the cross-Canada (Canada.com) newspapers. She is however listed in the international auction house search engines which is a rarity for a Canadian. I did find yesterday an online critique from the 80s which I will upload. So while I also agree that the research leaves much to be desired, Jennifer Hornyak still remains a popular Canadian artist. Unfortunately this was one of my first attempts and I now understand notability and writing style better through the help of the Teahouse. Re Canadian content, as a columnist and reviewer I have also covered Jim Dine and Hunt Slonen, but as these artists have adequate to over-the-top coverage, I believe I add more value to add to or improve the many Canadian artist stubs. Thank you for your feedback. HeatherBlack ( talk) 17:06, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
- @ HeatherBlack, 'Glad you appeared here! Based on what you're saying, there s/b IMO no problem rel this artist's notability. Stalwart I believe is saying that the subject appeared from his reading of the article and sources to be only a "LOCAL" (my cap) rather than nationally notable Canadian artist. If there's rich source material in French, I highly recommend any good translate program such as googletranslate ( http://translate.google.com) Just paste the entire text of the French article into the box for English trans., and you can usually understand the result well enough to make good clear "English sense" of it. (There's no rule against the use of foreign-language sources on English WP, only a preference for English (If as good or better English ones exist, AND the requirement that if challenged you provide a translation of the challenged info. Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources. Also 'cuz it's a BLP, you should technically have a live translator according to the rule. I guess just run it by a French-speaking friend. Actually, IME what WP is worried about is libel or upsetting live subjects who will scream at WP, neither of which seems likely in this case.) The translate programs are hugely improved over even a few years ago, and might do wonders for sourcing in this case if the best sources are in French. Rel citing the publication info of the French source, it's common practice and perfectly fine to cite that in the original tongue.
- Also maybe a little elaboration as to substantiality and signficance (and if not already existing in the text, then TYING to a source) of those exhibitions in prominent venues already listed in the article. Best, Paavo273 ( talk) 17:48, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:26, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:26, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:26, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Seems notable; and worthwhile... Modernist ( talk) 12:49, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- Keep the artist has a long track record of involvement in the visual arts. This is from the article: "Since 2003 Hornyak has held over ten solo exhibitions. A participant in many group shows,[9] her paintings are exhibited alongside work by Jim Dine, Chuck Close, and Tom Hopkins in Montreal,[10] and at Miami Art Basel, the Chicago Contemporary and Classic, and Toronto International Art Fair. In 2013, Hornyak exhibited across Canada at Wallace Galleries (Calgary), Trias Gallery (Toronto), Oeno Gallery (Kingston), Galerie St-Laurent + Hill (Ottawa), Galerie de Bellefeuille (Montreal), Studio 21 (Halifax) and Trinity Gallery (Saint John)." Bus stop ( talk) 15:52, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- That's kind of my point. Having a "long track record of involvement" is not an inclusion criteria. Being exhibited alongside others is not an inclusion criteria - she doesn't inherit notability from others. And that list of galleries mostly includes small, privately-owned galleries. That's great, but it doesn't establish notability. We need significant coverage in multiple reliable sources beyond the reviews in small local papers we have now. The article author's suggestion that there might be some coverage from the 80s would be a great start. Likewise, anything that verifies that she has been exhibited at a venue larger than someone's tiny private gallery. Please understand, I'm not supporting deletion for the sake of it and I've created articles about art and artists myself. I'd love if this were kept. But we need more than what is in the article because on the basis of what it there, the subject wouldn't seem to meet our inclusion criteria. Stalwart 111 22:20, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- Coming - What I need to do then is add a "critical review" paragraph and quote the art magazines already mentioned: Vie des Arts, Le collectionneur, and Magazin'Art. If I recall correctly, there were several others, but it might take a week or so, because I work. I translate French regularly, but I'll put the original text in the Talk Page, so it can be verified. Thanks for the suggestions. HeatherBlack ( talk) 13:55, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- Comment - Stalwart's point about need for better sources is well taken, and the article author has already started to address that with one or more sources added since this AfD started. In any case, IMO this AfD was at best precipitant to start with. There is IMO enough prima facie notability in this article to raise the questions how substantial were her works' roles at how significant of exhibitions at Canada's largest and one of its most prominent art galleries. The appropriate course IMO would have been to discuss it on the talk page stating what the sourcing deficiencies were and what needed to be done to establish notability. * And add a banner cite tag as well as some inline ones, and wait a few months and see where it goes. Instead, after about six months with no complaints (no cite tags on the article page and no remarks on the talk page) the article was suddenly just nominated for deletion. IMO the former is still the appropriate action now, all the more so due to the author's weighing in and already adding one or more cites of wider ranging source(s). I agree that most of the local gallery exhibitions s/h probably been left off because a not entirely unworthy (but also by no means necessary) inference is that there isn't much significance or why else would the author include several strictly local ones. When in reality, it's just as reasonable to infer that the author didn't know local exhibitions aren't important and just needs to clarify and add to existing sources that do matter. I think the existing quality of the article deserves at least that. There are probably hundreds or thousands of WP articles that cite no sources whatsoever and whose subjects have no self-evident indicia of notability at all. It sounds to me like additional sources that may qualify the subject by a broader standard of notability than the narrow creative professionals one may also be forthcoming. Paavo273 ( talk) 18:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, the article author probably (unknowingly) exacerbated the issue by creating a user page that strongly suggested she was a single-purpose editor. So another editor comes along, sees an article that lists mostly local galleries and exhibitions and almost entirely local news coverage, checks the history and sees it was created by an author whose purpose here is to raise the profile of local Canadian artists. To be honest, I'd probably have done the same. It's not nice but it is the way it is and the nominator isn't really to blame. That said, there'd be nothing wrong with re-listing this for a week (which seems like where this would be going anyway) to enable the author to add more references. A good faith commitment to do that has been made and I don't think anyone is in a hurry. Take the week, add the sources in question and we can re-visit the issue in a few days. But the fact that other articles should probably be deleted is never a strong argument that this one should be kept. Stalwart 111 23:13, 18 February 2014 (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.
- 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. I'm not convinced this really meets notability guidelines, but the article is well written, and well referenced, and I certainly don't see any solid consensus to delete, so calling this a keep -- RoySmith (talk) 01:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Jennifer Hornyak
- Jennifer Hornyak ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Local references only; does not meet the WOP:CREATIVE standard of having works in the permanent collections of major museums.
Accepted at AfC nonetheless DGG ( talk ) 04:43, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - the coverage seems decidedly local and that which I could find myself constituted only one-line passing mentions. Nom is right about the lack of significant exhibitions and one of the significant claims to notability included in the article is that the subject's works have been hung nearby/next to the works of notable others. Doesn't work that way. Stalwart 111 05:03, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - Appears from list of exhibitions to meet
WP:Notability#Creative professionalsWP:Notability (people)#Creative professionals #4(b) (and possibly 4(c), although not enough info there to tell for sure). Is there some defined WP standard I've missed for "significant exhibition"? Paavo273 ( talk) 06:09, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- "Significant critical attention" would generally be enough to warrant a pass against
WP:GNG because such attention would likely constitute significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. I think that is there to account for instances of critical attention that are not "multiple" but are still attention from a single significant critical source. The "critical attention" in this case includes an article in the subject's local newspaper about an exhibition at a local gallery featuring, "over 25 local and international artists" with a passing mention of the subject. Hardly "significant" anything. The locations for her solo exhibitions are mainly local neighbourhood galleries or private establishments, not major national (or even regional) art galleries. The coverage mainly consists of articles about those exhibitions in local galleries. I think we need a lot more than that for an artist to meet either
WP:ARTIST or
WP:GNG.
Stalwart
111 06:37, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- Your analysis of 4(c) seems sound. What I was referring mainly to was Notability for creative professionals 4(b) which states, "[Person's work] has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition," my focus being on the substantial part and significant exhibition. Her particip. in group exhibitions is listed as including @ at least two notable Montreal venues. Whether these were substantial parts of significant exhibitions, I can't say for sure. If it's not in sourced coverage in the article text, it s/b.
- I see so many truly trivial WP articles that nobody ever looks at, it just seems a shame if people want to read about her and the article is gone. According to page view statistics, the article's been hit approximately 90 times just the first 1.5 month this year. I'd think something like at least half of those are from people wanting to learn about her as opposed to editors logging in to edit or check on changes.
Paavo273 (
talk) 07:26, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- That's not unfair and it's worth further consideration (and analysis of sources in particular). But there seems to be a couple of these articles, all the work of a single editor whose focus seems to be promoting local Canadian art in general rather than carefully selecting only those subjects that meet our guidelines before creating articles. In some instances, a more careful approach with regard to our guidelines would result in articles that are unlikely to be challenged. We certainly shouldn't be encouraging otherwise by accepting these articles at AFC before they are ready. It just creates an environment where new editors are bitten because they don't know better and aren't told better. I'm not seeing notability with what has been provided thus far but I'm always willing to be turned around. Stalwart 111 08:48, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- "Significant critical attention" would generally be enough to warrant a pass against
WP:GNG because such attention would likely constitute significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. I think that is there to account for instances of critical attention that are not "multiple" but are still attention from a single significant critical source. The "critical attention" in this case includes an article in the subject's local newspaper about an exhibition at a local gallery featuring, "over 25 local and international artists" with a passing mention of the subject. Hardly "significant" anything. The locations for her solo exhibitions are mainly local neighbourhood galleries or private establishments, not major national (or even regional) art galleries. The coverage mainly consists of articles about those exhibitions in local galleries. I think we need a lot more than that for an artist to meet either
WP:ARTIST or
WP:GNG.
Stalwart
111 06:37, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
I wrote on Jennifer Hornyak because she is one of about twenty contemporary artists who are household names across Canada. She has exhibited in Canada’s premier contemporary art gallery (our MOMA), the Musée d’art contemporain de Montréal (collected artists are not listed), as Montreal is Canada’s capital for the Arts, much like NYC in the US. Also her work and career are followed in St John’s, Halifax, Montreal, Kingston, Ottawa, Toronto, Calgary, and Vancouver through the top commercial contemporary galleries. I also agree with wikipedia’s preference for federal collections, but the National Art Gallery doesn’t list those included (in the collections section, of the 381 artists whose name begins with H, they name 26 of which only 5 are living), and you need to apply to the Canada Council for the Arts to be part of their collection. Finding critical reviews are also problematic because it’s primarily French in Montreal and English in Toronto with very little overlap. Also the prime English-language daily of Jennifer’s heyday, the mid-eighties, the Montreal Star has since folded, the online archives of the Toronto Globe and Mail (with English Canada’s sole full-time art reviewer) start in 2004, and I need subscriptions to research the cross-Canada (Canada.com) newspapers. She is however listed in the international auction house search engines which is a rarity for a Canadian. I did find yesterday an online critique from the 80s which I will upload. So while I also agree that the research leaves much to be desired, Jennifer Hornyak still remains a popular Canadian artist. Unfortunately this was one of my first attempts and I now understand notability and writing style better through the help of the Teahouse. Re Canadian content, as a columnist and reviewer I have also covered Jim Dine and Hunt Slonen, but as these artists have adequate to over-the-top coverage, I believe I add more value to add to or improve the many Canadian artist stubs. Thank you for your feedback. HeatherBlack ( talk) 17:06, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
- @ HeatherBlack, 'Glad you appeared here! Based on what you're saying, there s/b IMO no problem rel this artist's notability. Stalwart I believe is saying that the subject appeared from his reading of the article and sources to be only a "LOCAL" (my cap) rather than nationally notable Canadian artist. If there's rich source material in French, I highly recommend any good translate program such as googletranslate ( http://translate.google.com) Just paste the entire text of the French article into the box for English trans., and you can usually understand the result well enough to make good clear "English sense" of it. (There's no rule against the use of foreign-language sources on English WP, only a preference for English (If as good or better English ones exist, AND the requirement that if challenged you provide a translation of the challenged info. Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources. Also 'cuz it's a BLP, you should technically have a live translator according to the rule. I guess just run it by a French-speaking friend. Actually, IME what WP is worried about is libel or upsetting live subjects who will scream at WP, neither of which seems likely in this case.) The translate programs are hugely improved over even a few years ago, and might do wonders for sourcing in this case if the best sources are in French. Rel citing the publication info of the French source, it's common practice and perfectly fine to cite that in the original tongue.
- Also maybe a little elaboration as to substantiality and signficance (and if not already existing in the text, then TYING to a source) of those exhibitions in prominent venues already listed in the article. Best, Paavo273 ( talk) 17:48, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:26, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:26, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:26, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Seems notable; and worthwhile... Modernist ( talk) 12:49, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- Keep the artist has a long track record of involvement in the visual arts. This is from the article: "Since 2003 Hornyak has held over ten solo exhibitions. A participant in many group shows,[9] her paintings are exhibited alongside work by Jim Dine, Chuck Close, and Tom Hopkins in Montreal,[10] and at Miami Art Basel, the Chicago Contemporary and Classic, and Toronto International Art Fair. In 2013, Hornyak exhibited across Canada at Wallace Galleries (Calgary), Trias Gallery (Toronto), Oeno Gallery (Kingston), Galerie St-Laurent + Hill (Ottawa), Galerie de Bellefeuille (Montreal), Studio 21 (Halifax) and Trinity Gallery (Saint John)." Bus stop ( talk) 15:52, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- That's kind of my point. Having a "long track record of involvement" is not an inclusion criteria. Being exhibited alongside others is not an inclusion criteria - she doesn't inherit notability from others. And that list of galleries mostly includes small, privately-owned galleries. That's great, but it doesn't establish notability. We need significant coverage in multiple reliable sources beyond the reviews in small local papers we have now. The article author's suggestion that there might be some coverage from the 80s would be a great start. Likewise, anything that verifies that she has been exhibited at a venue larger than someone's tiny private gallery. Please understand, I'm not supporting deletion for the sake of it and I've created articles about art and artists myself. I'd love if this were kept. But we need more than what is in the article because on the basis of what it there, the subject wouldn't seem to meet our inclusion criteria. Stalwart 111 22:20, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- Coming - What I need to do then is add a "critical review" paragraph and quote the art magazines already mentioned: Vie des Arts, Le collectionneur, and Magazin'Art. If I recall correctly, there were several others, but it might take a week or so, because I work. I translate French regularly, but I'll put the original text in the Talk Page, so it can be verified. Thanks for the suggestions. HeatherBlack ( talk) 13:55, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- Comment - Stalwart's point about need for better sources is well taken, and the article author has already started to address that with one or more sources added since this AfD started. In any case, IMO this AfD was at best precipitant to start with. There is IMO enough prima facie notability in this article to raise the questions how substantial were her works' roles at how significant of exhibitions at Canada's largest and one of its most prominent art galleries. The appropriate course IMO would have been to discuss it on the talk page stating what the sourcing deficiencies were and what needed to be done to establish notability. * And add a banner cite tag as well as some inline ones, and wait a few months and see where it goes. Instead, after about six months with no complaints (no cite tags on the article page and no remarks on the talk page) the article was suddenly just nominated for deletion. IMO the former is still the appropriate action now, all the more so due to the author's weighing in and already adding one or more cites of wider ranging source(s). I agree that most of the local gallery exhibitions s/h probably been left off because a not entirely unworthy (but also by no means necessary) inference is that there isn't much significance or why else would the author include several strictly local ones. When in reality, it's just as reasonable to infer that the author didn't know local exhibitions aren't important and just needs to clarify and add to existing sources that do matter. I think the existing quality of the article deserves at least that. There are probably hundreds or thousands of WP articles that cite no sources whatsoever and whose subjects have no self-evident indicia of notability at all. It sounds to me like additional sources that may qualify the subject by a broader standard of notability than the narrow creative professionals one may also be forthcoming. Paavo273 ( talk) 18:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, the article author probably (unknowingly) exacerbated the issue by creating a user page that strongly suggested she was a single-purpose editor. So another editor comes along, sees an article that lists mostly local galleries and exhibitions and almost entirely local news coverage, checks the history and sees it was created by an author whose purpose here is to raise the profile of local Canadian artists. To be honest, I'd probably have done the same. It's not nice but it is the way it is and the nominator isn't really to blame. That said, there'd be nothing wrong with re-listing this for a week (which seems like where this would be going anyway) to enable the author to add more references. A good faith commitment to do that has been made and I don't think anyone is in a hurry. Take the week, add the sources in question and we can re-visit the issue in a few days. But the fact that other articles should probably be deleted is never a strong argument that this one should be kept. Stalwart 111 23:13, 18 February 2014 (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.