Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guity Novin


 * 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 as modified Jinian 17:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Guity Novin

 * — (View AfD)


 * Delete Thamiel 22:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of the artists ability or intent, there is not enough notability to warrant an entry. There is no mention of this artist in peer assessed periodicals or journals, or any evidence that this artists has made a significant contribution the discipline and history of painting. The 'creation' of an anachronistic art movement that has no mention in contemporary discourses of art does not constitute a contribution. The art movement 'transpressionism' isn't mentioned or discussed in art circles, and only exists by virtue that Guity Novin has pronounced that it does. The article proper reads like a personal statement, rather than an article. The accomplishments of this artist (shows, commission) are no more than those of the thousands of working artists in her country, and not enough to warrant a wikipedia inclusion beside Anselm Kiefer, DaVinci, etc. Excuse me if I sound frustrated, but I have had to extricate Guity Novin from other articles. She somehow found her way into the History of Painting and the History of Contemporary Art, amongst other places. It seems like self promotion. Thamiel


 * Unfortunately, Novin's supporters seem to want to place her name and that of transpressionism in so many articles it borders on spam. Whatever Novin's merit as an artist, this only serves to cheapen her reputation. I've also been searching out ludicrous additions to other articles and it's annoying. As for Novin's notablity, I'm personally inclusionist enough to accept her article, but in radically edited version, which is mostly at this point original research with some pretty ridiculous claims. Freshacconci 22:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * (and this doesn't even mention the attacks, deletes and so on Novin's supporters have waged against anyone who tries to edit the articles in question) Freshacconci 22:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I am an arts administrator by profession, so I am very aware of art history, current trends and the philisophical discussions of art. Her article is all vanity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thamiel (talk • contribs) 22:38, 4 January 2007
 * Per AfD Wikiquette &mdash; The accusation VANITY should be avoided, and is not in itself a reason for deletion. Tyrenius 01:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I wonder why this artist provokes such hostility, not only in the fanatically chauvinist-dominated countries but also in the countries that supposedly tolerate a thinking woman. The enthusiastic support of some of the artist's students cannot be used as weakness to attack the artist's notability. An artist who has been active for more than 40 years and is a quiet, thinking and creative individual. According to Wikipedia policies:
 * let's be civil


 * The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed."


 * People who satisfy at least one of the items below may merit their own Wikipedia articles, as there is likely to be a good deal of verifiable information available about them and a good deal of public interest in them.

"The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person."

Here are some verifiable documents in French, English, and Persian:
 * 1.	Le Carnaval de la licorne, Julie Huard, Collection " Fugues/Parles", Les Édition L'Interligne, 2001
 * 2.	"A Heritage from Ancient Persia." A review of Guity Novin's exhibition Lost Serenade at the Brock street Gallery by Don McCallum, The Whig-Standard, Vol.2, No.51 Kingston, Ontario, October 3, 1981.
 * 3.	"Artistic Underground Surfaces" on Brock Street, by Frank Berry, The Queen's Journal, Queen¡Çs University, Kingston Ontario, Friday, October 9, 1981
 * 4.	"A Piece of the Blue Sky, Guity Novin; the Quiet Artist in Vancouver" By R. Mahjouri, Paivand, Vancouver, Vol. 6, No. 228, Friday Aug. 18, 2000.

The list of Persian articles on Guity Novin is large, but may not be acceptable by certain individuals of certain biases.


 * Painters, sculptors, architects, engineers, and other professionals whose work is widely recognized (for better or worse) and who are likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field.

Guity Novin is a painter with files on the National Gallery of Canada and the Vancouver Art Gallery and this is verifiable.

I find it disturbing that after attempts to delete the transpressionism page resulted in redirect and merge with the artist's page, now the same individuals are attempting to delete the artis's page. This is not acceptable by any fair minded person in a civil soceity. 140.80.199.91 23:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * As I've said, I'm willing to be inclusionist about the article in question, but what I am concerned about is a) the amount of original research in the article which needs to be edited; b) the spamming in countless articles by Novin's supporters; c) the personal attacks (including I would like to add, accusations of chauvinism and hostility) for merely attempting to edit articles; d) other aggressive actions by Novin's supporters such as attempts to delete my userpage; and finally, the actions of Novin's supporters serve only to diminish her reputation. If Novin is notable, fine. I'm willing to support an article on her, but let's not overstate her importance as a whole, which only, ironically, makes her seem less notable. In other words, her supporters' undoubtably genuine enthusiasm in fact makes her article seem like a vanity page. And I have been civil all along, and have been met with hostility. Freshacconci 23:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Files with the National Gallery and and the Vancouver Art Gallery do not amount to peer assessed reviews or criticism, they are merely files (files amongst thousands). I found about the artist only because of vandalism to the History of Painting entry, and followed it to the artists wiki entry.  There is no mention of transpressionism (a made-up movement that has not been discussed in any serious journal) in Parachute, Border Crossing, Art Forum, Canadian Art, Art in America, Modern Painters, etc.. Wiki does include "Painters, sculptors, architects, engineers, and other professionals whose work is widely recognized (for better or worse) and who are likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field" but the work of this artist isn't widely recognized, and because there is absolutely no discussion of 'transpressionism' amongst critics and the intelligentsia, there is no reason to think that the work of this artist will be part of the enduring historical record.  Occaisonal newspaper articles don't count as enough critical discourse to think otherwise.  My problem is that is appears someone is trying to re-write art history, and include this artist and the movement she has made-up. Thamiel


 * Dear Freshacconci, I for one, hope that never I have offended you and if I did I do apologize for it. This is out of respect for your civil attituds. AAnd I do see your points. Unfortunately not all supporters and opponents are impartial seekers of truth or even civil. I do not understand the point Thamiel makes. Wiki policy specifies (For Better or For Worse). It also specifies the list of acceptable printed materials. It does not say that every artist must be evaluated by a certain elits (the so called inteligentsia!!?). 140.80.199.91 00:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No offense taken. Things can get too personal here, or can be taken too personally. It works both ways. My rule pf thumb is to take a deep breath and back off if necessary. Freshacconci 15:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not judging the quality of the artists work, or making a personal attack. The artist isn't widely recognized, and the printed material isn't of a quantity or quality that makes one think that the artist and the work will be a part of the historical record.  As for 'elites', if you mean the people who critically think and write about art, both past and present, and are recognized as authorities in their field, then who else writes the historical record?  The artist isn't being evaluated in this instance, only their place in a historical continuum.  We as individuals shouldn't decide our own importance, it is left to others, and if we aren't a major facet of art history, why should we be dissatisfied. Thamiel


 * keep
 * Thamiel, are you sure that you are not judging?!! Artists like Guity Novin like to taunt the "intelligentsia".  This is what Cézanne  did when he was in his late 20s. When he loved taunting the art world and its Salon exhibitions. He laughed at artists who were “widely recognized”. He once advised artists only to send their worst works to the Salon, and although other rebels occasionally managed to show there, he was always rejected. When he participated in the first impressionist exhibition it was the same - the “recognized authorities in their field” reserved their coarsest laughter for his work. The critic Roger Fry (a member of intelligentsia  in the 1920s) wondered what might have become of Cézanne if his early paintings had been praised. To him the early works of Cézanne really were appalling; if they had been accepted, Cézanne would have painted more exaggerated scenes of sensuality and violence. Today, it's hard to be so trivializing of the young Cézanne - he is shocking and genius.


 * Similarly Novin has shown that she can only remain a successful painter, a powerful painter, so long as she refuses to historicize herself, so long as she refuses to let the others to decide for her   of “her importance” as a moment in history. As soon as she  becomes aware of “her own historicity”, she is unable to make the strong and unequivocal claims she must make in order to matter historically. That is why the undemocratic officialdom (the patrons of your Intelligentsia!) rejected her works and banished her to exile. She was denied her historicity, based on the kind of allegation that she shakes dull clichés of “historical continuum”. Yet she was praised by the kinds of late Ahmad Shamloo the poet laureate of Iran  for “seeking the path to human renaissance” and her “optimism and conviction in the possibility of that renaissance”. (see Ahamad Shamloo article on Guity Novin reprinted in Toronto’s Sharvand, page 31-vol 10/N532/ Friday Nov. 19, 2000)Tobiasforart
 * The preceding comment was left by User:24.81.86.162. If you want to have a user name, then please register it. Otherwise, sign with your IP address. Add 4 tildes ~ at the end of your post. Thank you. Tyrenius 23:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Time judged Cezanne and put him in the cannon of art history, he didn't judge himself.  Similarily, if time judges Guity as being as important as Cezanne, I will not debate her inclusion.  Scholars in consensus have deemed Cezanne important (not to mention the incredible pictorial breakthroughs he had and the many painters in many countries that were influenced by him). You can't rewrite history. Tranpressionism is a pastiche of former styles, in an age where manifestos are no longer relevant.  Nothing new there.  I doubt it will stand the test of time. If a few supporters and Guity herself decide that her work is historically important, it does not make it so.  If you choose to villify scholars, then throw away your art books, and your knowledge of what has past, because everything you know about any art outside your own is predicated on them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thamiel (talk • contribs) 03:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC).


 * Again, are you judging not when you say that"'Tranpressionism is a pastiche of former styles, in an age where manifestos are no longer relevant. Nothing new there. I doubt it will stand the test of time.""!!! And if Roger Fry was wrong about the young Cézanne, is it we, who "villify scholars", or his own closed-mindedness? You persistently claim that Guity's supporters are trying to rewrite the history. I wonder if that "writen history" is a closed book of taboos that should never be questioned? No my friend everything I know is not predicated on some old text books of art written by a growing number of talented, hungry, and frustrated young scholars, desperately seeking a tenure track. I go to exhibitions and listen to the young artists and through them I discover the energy and the creativity of the old-masters like Cezanne. Cheers!
 * Tobiasforart
 * The preceding comment was left by User:24.81.86.162. If you want to have a user name, then please register it. Otherwise, sign with your IP address. Add 4 tildes ~ at the end of your post. Thank you. Tyrenius 01:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * From the sources given (personal letters to Ms. Novin) this is pretty clearly a case of self-promotion. The gallery links from the National Gallery of Canada and the Vancouver Art Gallery are just trivial directory entries. She does appear to have gotten some minimal coverage in independent sources, but there's no indication how substantial those references are. So weak delete. (In any case, the POV essay on "Transpressionism" needs to be severely pruned.) Demiurge 09:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we are all getting carried away and talking in circles. This isn't a discussion page for anything but the nomination at hand. We need to vote on the merits of the proposal and be succinct, and not take things personally (and I include myself here as well!). Freshacconci 15:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's try to keep things in perspective


 *  Weak Keep I feel strongly about the abuse to numerous articles by supporters of Novin--the insertion of "transpressionism" in countless pages and lists. However, doing a quick search of Novin indicates she is a painter of some note. I am not convinced of the importance of transpressionism, and I feel that the Novin article needs to be edited as per NPOV policies, and by disinterested contributors (i.e. not Novin's supporters, and probably not by the two or three of us who have been editing so far. Things are too touchy right now for that). As for her some of the cites of importance, I agree that a file at the National Gallery is next-to-meaningless. I'm on file there too, and although it's cool to see my name on file, it doesn't mean much. But some of the other sources check out and I think an edited version of the main article should stay. Freshacconci 15:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * keep Nothing can be farther from truth than the allegation of |self-promotion. It is ironic that in a democratic forum such as this an attempt is being made to wipe out the name of a truly authentic artist by such cheap shots.  Of course, I have no doubt that some of the concerns raised by Freashacconci are genuine and valid. But I wonder on whose behalf those who incite a backlash against the artist are acting.
 * In fact, she has been quite reluctant to give us permission to include a number of important documents about her artistic achievements. We have insisted on this minimum, because it is important for us to lionize her courage and her convictions. Despite a concerted attempt by her native art officialdom to silent her historical role many underground art periodicals and university students¡Ç websites glorify her contributions (just Google to find out).140.80.199.91 18:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I suspect this is an inadvertent duplicate "keep" of the one above left by User:User:24.81.86.162 with the same editor on a different computer. Tyrenius 22:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Her painting are nice and well executed, but unfortunately she just isn't important or well known enough to warrant this entry, and vandalism to art history pages and personal myth-making aside, she isn't a part of the historical record. Where is a record of consistent exhibition in public galleries, artist-run-centres and well recognized commercial galleries?--Thamiel 18:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Such self-righteous intolerance is rampant among the art administrators of small towns. Censorship is not only a bad rap for those who are censored: the artist. It is also a bad rap for the rest of us, in the sense that genuine conflicts of views on art are never had out and thus never resolved. Anyhow, I checked the artist web-site( guitynovin.com) on the article tab, you can find in the resume section. At the end of her resume there is a record of various Solo and group exhibitions by the artist. e.g., for artist-run-centres: she participated in 2004 show "Body and Soul" in Ferry Building  Gallery in West Vancouver ( Google to verify). In 2001 she had a solo exhibition at Place des Art at Coquitlam entitled “ And Indeed There Will be Time; MY BC perid”. For well recognized commercial galleries, in 1998 and 2001 she exhibited at Guthenham Gallery "Rhapsody on a windy night" and "painting shadows over imaginary lines" in the Granville Island of Vancouver. (you can verify by calling the admin of GI). In 1996  she exhibited at Cumberland Town Hall "l'importance c'est la rose". And the list goes back to 1968. Tobiasforart
 * The preceding comment was left by User:64.59.144.22. If you want to have a user name, then please register it. Otherwise, sign with your IP address. Add 4 tildes ~ at the end of your post. Thank you. Tyrenius 01:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "Such self-righteous intolerance is rampant among the art administrators of small towns." You mean me? I think Self-righteous indignation and inflated self-opinions are rampant amongst the mediocre and unknown.--Thamiel 00:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Note Editors are requested to remain CIVIL and refrain from personal attacks. Violation can lead to being blocked from editing. Thank you. Tyrenius 01:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Please note that since the above comments I have drastically edited the article. I agree with and endorse all of Freshacconci's points above. I also recognise that Thamiel presents a coherent case. My keep vote! is based on the article not returning to its former state. Also Guity Novin and Transpressionism should not be inserted in other articles boosting her status above what is merited. She is not a major artist. I do consider, however, that she is of sufficient achievement to merit inclusion. There are plenty of bands included, for example, who are not The Beatles. Tyrenius 03:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This discussion has been included in WikiProject Deletion sorting/Arts and WikiProject Deletion sorting/Visual arts. Tyrenius 03:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you Tyrenius for your excellent work. I will be away from tomorrow. I hope when I return things are sorted out ;) cheers Nicomuch 05:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I am disappointed, and I am not alone. I found the allegations such as "not being a major artist" or "mediocre and unknown" are totally false and uncalled for. Francinetornto
 * —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.108.125.5 (talk • contribs).
 * User's only edit. Warning - such users are likely to be discounted by the closing admin. Tyrenius 04:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. I apologize for using the phrase mediocre, it was an ad hominem arguement.  I stand by the assertion that she is not a major artist.Thamiel 20:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete This. Theis paintings are not good. I agree with this painter must be deleted.
 * —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.61.241.100 (talk • contribs).
 * User's 5th edit. Tyrenius 18:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This isn't a debate on the quality of the artist's work, or a judgement on her abilities. Thamiel 20:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Yes she is not a major artist. This dabate is enough. Please close and delete the page. 74.101.225.110 21:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * User's only edit. Tyrenius 01:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * keep I thought the criterion was notable, not major. major is a level which very few can reach. DGG 04:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I did some search (with the MSN -- Google could not give any), and I found this site (Russian?). I cannot for some reason open it but I suspect there are some other transperssionists name there-- any chance that some of them might be notable?
 * http://search.sympatico.msn.ca/results.aspx?q=transpressionists&geovar=70&FORM=REDIR
 * 140.80.199.91 20:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Note An addition only just made to the article is the review by Mansooreh Hosseini (previously awaiting verification). Tyrenius 23:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * delete Please keep in mind that "Unfortunately, Novin's supporters seem to want to place her name and that of transpressionism in so many articles it borders on spam. Whatever Novin's merit as an artist, this only serves to cheapen her reputation. I've also been searching out ludicrous additions to other articles and it's annoying. Her painting are not well executed, and unfortunately she just isn't important or well known enough to warrant this entry, and vandalism to art history pages and personal myth-making aside, she isn't a part of the historical record."
 * TMSOttawa74.101.225.110 22:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strike duplicate vote!. User's 3rd edit. The other two are 5 paras previously. Tyrenius 04:36, 12 January 2007 (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.