Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Dutkewych


 * 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. consensus seems clear after the additional information  DGG ( talk ) 01:18, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Andrew Dutkewych

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable artist. Does not pass GNG. Maybeparaphrased (talk) 06:34, 4 July 2016 (UTC) Maybeparaphrased (talk) 06:34, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:37, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 15:26, 4 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep. Artist is the author of numerous permanent public sculptures in Montreal and elsewhere. One is an |extremely prominent work at the Museum of Point-a-Callieres in old Montreal. The public works alone satisfy WP:ARTIST. On thop of this, there are plenty of references in print (coverage is largely pre-Internet) which I will provide after a trip to the library! I've added about a half dozen references and will add more over the course of nomination. WP:BEFORE should have been done before this nomination happened.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 15:58, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per failure of WP:ARTIST, which reads as follows:
 * Authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals [are notable when]:
 * The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
 * Subject does not seem important in the sense given here, and there's no evidence he's widely cited.
 * The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique.
 * No indication of passing on this point.
 * The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
 * While he has created public works, there is no indication of significance for these works (see next point), at least not to the extent of being subject to multiple non-trivial independent mentions.
 * The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.
 * Again, "significant" is key here. Creating a public work (or works) is not the question here; creating a significant public work is what's needed. Dutkewych's Entre Nous, the purported prominent work, does not seem to be too significant itself, at least not to the extent of this guideline; it would take more to pass the bar here, in my opinion. As for "substantial part of a significant exhibition", "significant critical attention", and "is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums", there seems to be nothing to indicate fulfillment of these criteria.

Now, for those book references (which really shouldn't have been removed from the article, ), doing a search within the books turns up this:
 * A few passing mentions, including something which seems to say he was part of an exhibition. What or where the exhibition was, I do not know, but it doesn't seem like much as is.
 * One mention, which seems to be an image caption rather than prose.
 * Nothing discernable, at least nothing I can see.

While there may be more in these books that I can't preview, I don't see it being very likely, considering the nature of the results done from this search. , if you can provide more concrete examples of notability, I will be glad to change my opinion, but as of now, it seems deletion is the best option. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints&#124;Mistakes) 17:51, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Colonel Wilhelm Klink, thanks for your analysis!
 * 1) I have added four or five reviews, in pdf form, to the article. They came from an interesting database called Erudit, which seems to have the copyright for archiving and making open access old periodicals.
 * 2) Mduvekot was kind enough to add a publications list, which is mostly exhibition catalohgues where others write about the artist's work. With item 1 above, we are up to over a dozen critical mentions. There are more, but they will be harder to find as they are older or not indexed online.
 * 3) Perhaps most notably, I discovered that his work is in two major museum collections (MNBAQ and MMFA. See page under "collections"). It should be noted that the public artworks are also in the collections of whoever holds them (e.g. the museum at Point a Callieres.). I hope this is enough for you... HappyValleyEditor (talk) 20:45, 4 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks, and yes, the two museum collections and the multiple reviews are enough to pass WP:ARTIST. Good work digging up those sources. Changing to keep per new evidence. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints&#124;Mistakes) 20:57, 4 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - multiple references to his work in disparate publications suggests he's someone we should cover. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:30, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Plenty of coverage. White Arabian Filly  Neigh 22:39, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: agreeing that article, sources and stated content now have established notability. Thanks for all the work involved in favour of keeping this interesting artist and article. ツ Fylbecatulous talk 13:45, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: Sourcing looks like he meets WP:ARTIST to me.   Montanabw (talk)  01:35, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep for art in permanent collections of multiple notable museums. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:07, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Time to close? Seems very clear at this point.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 23:41, 11 July 2016 (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.