Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jules Siegel

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. --BozMo talk 09:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Closing early: no votes to delete and arguments have convinced me as nominator for AfD.

[edit] Jules Siegel

Jules Siegel (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

No visible notability. Prod deleted by user with name matching subject of article. Looks like non notable author.--BozMo talk 21:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep - does indeed appear to be notable - has interviews with important sites: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] and especially [7]. However, dropped from keep, as he loses points for WP:VANITY. Part Deux 21:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Am interested that these are "important" sites...--BozMo talk 21:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Granted, it does seem to be a cult following. Lots of mentions in borderline publications. Except for the last one: mexconnect.com is a notable website. Part Deux 21:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Vanity books? Are you kidding? Three are in the Museum of Modern Art's Artists Books Collection. Two are reprints of books published by independents, including Straight Arrow. Another of my books was published by Workman. I design and publish my own work because that's the only way that I can have 100% creative control. "Freedom of the press is limited to those who one one." A. J. Liebling. I take that really seriously. Well, what the hell, Wikipedia is all just one big vanity press -- and now it wants to cull out people like me. AlterNet.org is non-important? This is really silly. It reminds me of a fraternity hazing. --Jules Siegel

I'd like to add that Jules Siegel is not only a notable author, but also a notable person, one that should not be deleted. -- Sharon Secor

Listen, all that is required rather than lots of WP:SPAs

You are using the term in a demeaning way that reveals your bias. I was informed about it by an admirer, who suggested that I fix it and inform my friends about it. The people respond who are interested in me, not the rest of your system. They take the quickest opening for defending me. I am not going to go into this at length. Suffice it so say that the Wikipedia instructional system has become obscure and unwieldy. Look at the bureacratic thicket that's growing right here as I attempt to get you to understand that perhaps you might be a bit out of line. A bit. Have you ever heard the term "kangaroo court?" I thought not. Well, follow the link. Shall we have a dreaded smiley here? Why not? :) --Jules Siegel

appearing and declaring that JS is notable is "visible notability"... that means the basis for notability has to be visible in the article. Include details in the article establishing notability as defined by the guidelines and we will rejoice. Jules, I don't think you should edit an article about yourself because of the guideline WP:COI but you are welcome to include things on the talk page which establish this. --BozMo talk 20:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The "visible notability" material has been in the article since I originally posted it back when Wikipedia was young. I don't want to sound testy, but has anyone read it? As far as editing my own article, doing so is entirely consistent with my life and work. As you can see, I haven't glorified myself. I've simply listed a few of my accomplishments with pointers to others. I was unaware of the WP:COI guideline (which I note are guidelines, not rules) when I added a few more items. I really don't get any of this. You've instituted a set of rather obscure "guidelines" and you are now zealously enforcing them retroactively as if they were rules in the most heavy-handed way possible. Does it occur to you that perhaps you should have read the article and looked at the external links first? In my view, Wikipedia should strive for inclusiveness, not exclusiveness. --Jules Siegel

Hmm. Please understand we have to deal with vast numbers of people who want pages about themselves. Yes, I read the article and followed the links. This is not personal please don't feel "testy". In return I ask have you read WP:BIO? I couldn't see anything which met the guidelines hence I tagged it for notability. You took the tag off without answering the question so ending up here is a bit procedural.

I added a link to the Museum of Modern Art Dadabase and Franklin Furnace. --Jules Siegel

Some good independent reviews of your work (i.e. not lulu.com or blogs) would be enough to qualify: I presume you have some, just provide them and I'll withdraw the AfD. Or if the links provided contain such say which: I do not have a deep knowledge of the nature of US publications. --BozMo talk 10:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

If you read the discussion, you'll see that I supplied the links to the reviews. Since you've discouraged me from editing my own page, I now have to wait for someone to spontaneously post them, I presume. Oh well, I'll just go ahead and post them myself and you can use that against me, too.

I also want to take exception to your comment about "blogs." You are setting criteria that you have absolutely no competence to judge. A review is a review. Who are you to determine the credibility of the source? You admit that you don't have deep knowledge of "the nature of US publications." In my case, the nature of the publications in which my work has appeared -- not reviewed -- is what actually counts the most and what makes me "notable." So if you aren't aware of the significance of New American Review, Saturday Evening Post, Playboy, Village Voice, Library of America, Rolling Stone, The Rock History Reader, you should perhaps do some research. All of these publications are listed in my cv.

People who come looking for me do so because of the quality of my work, often because they've seen my name mentioned in an online discussion, or because they are historians and scholars who are researching Brian Wilson, Bob Dylan, Thomas Pynchon and other celebrated people about whom I wrote articles that are unique original sources of information. The Brian Wilson story has been anthologized several times and is used as a primary source in every book about him. It's usually referred to as a "classic."

Now I can get one of my admirers to write that up and put it on the page, but I don't really feel that would be much different from doing it myself. The basic issue here is honesty. That's what my work is all about. If you can't perceive that from what I've written in this discussion and you can't get the points raised by the people who have written in my behalf, I think that I have to challenge you to defend your credibility and your judgment. Who are you exactly? Why are you tearing around Wikipedia imposing your rather legalistic edicts in areas where you admit you have little or no expertise?

Let's get something straight. I don't need Wikipedia. I posted some corrections in the story on Cancun quite a while ago. I don't recall when I decided to put up a brief item about myself. It just seemed like a good idea at the time. I did not realize that I would later be subjected to a "procedure" about it by an over-zealous administrator intent on maintaining the purity of Wikipedia from the un-notable. I was later invited to contribute by Jimmy Wales after I wrote to him to complain about offensive remarks about me that appeared in the Thomas Pynchon article that I could not edit because my IP address had been banned for unknown reasons. The remarks were immediately corrected by one of the administrators who was responsible for the page and my IP was fixed. So it's really more of a case of Wikipedia needing me, specifically because of my "notability."

If you want to delete, please do so. I've really had quite enough of this absurd and embarrassing discussion which has been an utter waste of my time. Nothing seems to satisfy you. --Jules Siegel

A friend has pointed out to me that the vanity remark refers to the fact that I wrote my own entry. That's right. I am a self-referential artist. My work is about me and what I see. That's the only truth I know. It's the only truth I believe. Anything else is hearsay. I used to write about Very Important People -- Brian Wilson, Bob Dylan, Thomas Pynchon -- for very large publications. A time came when I realized that my own life was what I knew best and that was what I should record.

Go ahead and delete it. If someone else chooses to restore it, that's fine with me. Dumped from Wikipedia for writing my own brief bio. From Wikipedia?. It's just the greatest! I love it. --Jules Siegel

I don't profess to be a Wikipedia expert, but Mr. Siegel appears to meet the "notability" test for authors set forth on the Wiki help pages that "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work". Perhaps he can elaborate, particularly with respect to the "art" and travel books. -- Jack Lebowitz Jackl2400 17:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Lineland: Mortality and Mercy on the Internet's Pynchon-L@Waste.Org. Record. Cancun User's Guide. Mad Laughter: Fragments of a Life in Progress I don't know why I am doing this. I am pathetic. Masturbating in public at 71. Help. --Jules Siegel

Last entry. Now I get it. I'm losing points for defending myself. WP:VANITY. Reminds me of [Bobby Seale]] bound and gagged at the Chicago Seven trial. Interestingly enough, I interviewed Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin, Tom Hayden, and Bobby Seale, four of the seven, for "Revolution," Playboy, March, 1970. But let's not get that heavy. Go ahead and delete me. I give up. Wikpedia has rules. You've got to know those rules. Other people have to point out that I am notable. Other people have to delete the delete Jules Siegel notice. [Slaps head.] How could I have been so stupid! Now I'm not going to be in Wikipedia and I am banished to the dustbin of history. That's what I get for talking back. Will I never learn?

Keep it. Siegel is a noted author with an compelling life story and an established body of work, who has been widely recognized by his peers. It seems to me the wikipedians are getting a little heavy-handed with their wanton purges based on an overencompassing vanity criteria. Self-submitted entries should be scrutinized certainly, but this should not be solely used as a convenient and to my mind, somewhat lazy excuse, to delete. Surely if his work is considered important enough for MOMA, that alone should render the request to delete moot. -- Libby Spencer —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.57.79.132 (talk)

Keep -- his work is in the Museum of Modern Art; that gives him a certain level of notability that at least equals a lot of other people who have articles in WP.--Bookgrrl ^holler/lookee here 14:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep -- I've been reading the work of Jules Siegel for decades. To leave him out of Wikipedia is narrow-minded and misguided. Wikipedia is supposed to be a reference. Refer to him. David Goen Dsgoen 16:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Seems good enough to keep, the flood of socks notwithstanding. Stifle (talk) 22:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• keep The article is sourced, and N is clear. We should not be prejudiced against it because of the subject's/editor's absurd comments in this AfD.DGG 04:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep -- Jules is a genuine person, reputed writer. While it is not proper for a writer to write about him/herself in an encyclopedia, the things Jules has written are sourced and not out of the blue. Nixdorf 08:07, 31 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.