Talk:Tim Folzenlogen
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on July 25 2006. The result of the discussion was keep. |
Before commenting here I would just like to ask editors to read the article carefully. I think there is enough information in the article already to make clear that Folzenlogen is a sufficiently notable artist.
There are a large number of artists (in the broad sense of the word, including painters, writers, musicians, etc.) who have a page on Wikipedia in spite of the fact that, unlike Folzenlogen, they are not sufficiently successful to support themselves full-time. A fair measure of a living artist's abilities and popularity is whether people are willing to pay large sums for his or her work. The fact that even Folzenlogen's small paintings command 4-figure prices and that he has sold over 1000 paintings is an indication of his significance.
At the Virtual Museum of Art, an "on-line exhibition illustrating major achievements in painting, [etc.]," the page on Contemporary Realism states "After 50 years of being practiced in the wings of the artistic community, Contemporary Realism is making a reappearance," and Folzenlogen is listed as one of the 11 references of Contemporary Realism painters or web sites which list painters or discuss Contemporary Realism. Folzenlogen is an important figure within this reemerging genre.
Although I am fairly new to Wikipedia, and am not knowledgeable of every aspect of recommended procedures, I have read much of the material on proposed deletions, but little of it seemed to apply in this case. Because the template instructs "You may remove this message...if you otherwise object to deletion of the article for any reason," I am doing so in good faith. I welcome debate on the issue, however, especially any advice on how to improve the article. -Exucmember 04:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Have you read the guidelines on Autobiography? This seems to be an autobiography, and it seems that it is being used as a platform for a very very poorly sourced attack (that's not quite the word I want, perhaps assault?) on Hyun Jin Moon and the Unification Church. Do you realise the amount of vandalism, slander, and attack that will earn you? Are you prepared to put up with that? You could remove the notice, go through AfD, and it's possible that it will be kept, as notability is a difficult issue, and many people are far more willing to have more in the encyclopedia than I think wise. However, you should seriously think about whether you actually want an article on Wikipedia. Mak (talk) 04:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- Alright, now I understand why you nominated this article for deletion. No, this is not an autobiography! I am not Tim Folzenlogen. I do not even know him personally, though I do know of him (and I am genuinely impressed by his work in addition to my knowing of him because of our both being members of the Unification Church). I didn't know a lot of the details, however, so I did have to do some research on the web to get a lot of the references and quotations, most of of which I didn't know before today. In fact, the reason I put the stub section tag on the "Thought behind the art" section is that I wasn't confident I was encapsulating his thought adequately, and if not I hoped someone would give a more representative quotation.
-
- As to the issue of his run-in with Hyun Jin Moon, this is already well-known within the church. Members who spent any time on the Internet have been hearing about it since the mid-90s, and there are several Wikipedia pages which mention it and several web sites where Folzenlogen's letter to Rev. Moon is posted (though I don't think he has it on his web site; he seems to be free of resentment over his experience while a member). I also harbor no resentments, and am not interested in making personal attacks; I explained my rationale earlier today on my user page for the minority of edits which are unfavorable toward the church but that I hope will lead to reforms. My purpose in choosing the username "Exucmember" was because my original motivation for editing (and the character of my early edits) was to counter the religious bigotry toward the Unification Church. I thought it would be a plus in defending Unificationists against such bigotry for it to come from a clearly identified ex-member. I realized recently that the username is significantly detrimental in making any edits that seem critical of the church. Before you jump to conclusions about me, you might want to look at the explanation on my user page and some of my edits on pages such as Moonies and pages that link to it or used to link to it, favorable comments about my edits from Unificationist User:Steve Dufour on Talk:Sun Myung Moon, Wolli Kangron, Unification Theological Seminary, New Hope Academy (which originally sparked my editing, and where you can clearly see from the talk page that I live in the Washington, D.C. area, not New York), Cult, Love bombing, etc. If it were not for bringing some of the problems into the daylight with the (barest) hope of future reforms, I might well have been accused of being a Unificationist posing as an ex-member. So you really needn't worry about my being attacked. And in fact, before I'd read what you wrote above I had already revised that paragraph in a way that toned it down significantly, feeling that it was disproportionate to the level of detail I had about Folzenlogen's personal biography. I would certainly not have taken the time to write this article if I did not genuinely believe Folzenlogen is a notable artist. I would appreciate any response or suggestions you may have. -Exucmember 06:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Suggestions
I appreciate your contributions to the article. I've removed the line "Straight out of college, he found a patron not previously known to him, and has been a full-time professional artist ever since." as well as the reference to how much money his paintings sell for. I think these things make him sound less famous. We shouldn't need to mention things like that for a notable artist. We don't need to mention how much Hopper's paintings sell for; neither do we here (unless it's especially notable or unusual).
Also, although the critical commentary can be a good aid, it's not good to have so much that is so positive because it makes the article sound one sided and unencyclopedic. It's best to have comments that are specific and insightful, rather than general (positive or negative). Hope this helps. MarkBuckles 02:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I really appreciate yours. The copyedit was very good, and I think you're right about the minor items you deleted more recently, though my idea was to fill in the biographical information. I spent a couple hours looking at other artist's pages on Wikipedia, and have a better idea of what to do, but by all means go ahead and do some more editing on this page. I think your edits are of high quality, and appreciate them. Let me ask you a couple questions: I've added categories that seem appropriate, but I'm not really familiar enough with the way categories are used to be completely confident in my choices. If you would have a look I'd appreciate it. Also, despite what someone said in the AfD, I'm thinking that the reference to the Hyun Jin Moon episode be further de-emphasized; it seems like a more appropriate place for it is in the footnote. What do you think? Third, I've cut down one of the quotations after considering (for too long) how to do it; I think I need a second opinion. Are further cuts waranted? If so, please have another go. Thanks. -Exucmember 14:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I think the categories are good. I don't know anything about the relevance of the Hyun Jin Moon episode, so I trust your judgement on whatever your decide there. I do think it stands out a bit as a part of the bio and might be better as a footnote if you choose to include it. If you do, I would remove the subjective word "unfortunate" from the description. I cut the second quote altogether because it seemed like the least interesting of the three in terms of actually conveying content about Folzenlogen's style. Just my pref though. You could still maintain the reference information if you want; many articles have separate sections for Notes and References. Hope this helps. MarkBuckles 21:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
