Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Folzenlogen

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.  RasputinAXP  c 17:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tim Folzenlogen

I think this guy is non-notable, and doesn't fall within wP:BIO. I also believe this is vanity written by the subject of the article. For the lazy, the guideline for artists is "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" and I really don't think he falls within that. He is claiming notability based on his accomplishments as a painter, however almost all of the 116 ghits relate to his connection with the Unification Church, and the article contains a link to the subject's indictment of Hyun Jin Moon, which I think is going to come back and bite someone on the ass (it is at least unwise). The sources for this article are basically local-interest stories in very small local papers (I live in Manhattan and I've never heard of the Manhattan Times.)

• Delete forthwith. 06:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Makemi, You might have waited until you read my response to your posting on Talk:Tim Folzenlogen - which I wrote immediately after you posted it without getting up from my computer - before sending this to AfD with erroneous information ([addition]: but I see from the edit conflict that you have corrected some of it). I am not the subject of the article. I am a highly educated professional who has taught at the college level for almost a decade, and I would certainly not have taken the time to write an article about Folzenlogen if I did not genuinely believe him to be a notable artist. It is true that I know of Folzenlogen through our both having a past association with the Unification Church, and that almost all of my edits have been on related topics. It is also true that the Manhattan Times is not a big paper; I was surprised myself when I saw that it has no entry in Wikipedia. There may be better sources out there; I put this initial attempt at an article together today based on what I found on the web. Please read below the discussion from talk page of the article in question.

I wrote:

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)

Makemi Wrote:

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)

I wrote:

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)

Disregarding the Unification Church issue, most of the text in the article is just an argument why the artist should be seen as of any relevance (and thus as worthy of an wikipedia entry). "compared to Edward Hopper" ... "50 solo shows" ... "popularity is reflected" ... etc. Is he on artnet.com? No. Is he on artfacts.net? No. Relevant for contemporary art? Unlikely. *Delete. --Jbirken 23:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. But give some examples of the artist's work. Aye-Aye 23:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anne Frank

He is claiming notability based on her popularity as a writer, however almost all of the 116 ghits relate to her connection with the Jewish religion or their treatment by the Nazis, and the article contains a link to the subject's indictment of an officer in the camp (who according to Frank's diaries from an earlier year engaged in repeated surprise beatings of Frank), which I think is going to come back and bite someone on the ass (it is at least unwise).

I'm assuming Makemi is being honest in the first paragraph above, and it doesn't make sense to me. Of course, her first objection was that the article was an autobiography (which it is not), but this assumption still underlies the rest of her comments (except that the Manhattan Times is not a big enough paper).

She seems to imply that a second area of notability, Folzenlogen's being involved in an important incident with a top leader of the Unification Church and subsequently writing about it, somehow makes the article illegitimate. On the contrary - he is notable in two areas, either of which is sufficient in my opinion - and certainly both areas together are sufficient. For comparison, more than 25 "famous whistleblowers" are listed on the Whistleblower page on Wikipedia, most being famous only in relation to the act of exposing of the misdeeds of powerful people and organizations; only 3 of these do not have their own pages. Folzenlogen doesn't fit this category precisely IMO, but the comparison is helpful. Present and former members of the Unification movement are concerned about the leadership of the second generation, and some believe Rev. Moon has had a tolerant attitude toward the violence of his 3 oldest sons (the second by proxy - I'll explain this if anyone's interested). This genuine and important concern should be addressed by both sides by discussing the facts. It is not appropriate for Makemi to suggest that the issue cannot be mentioned because people will respond vengefully. Besides, this part of the article is very low-key.

Without coming out and saying so, Makemi seems to be implying that Folzenlogen's notability as an artist is just a smoke screen for his notable involvement in violent responses from Unification Church leadership.

• Keep - 2 areas of notability.

Likewise without coming out and saying so, [User:Jbirken|Jbirken] implies that there is something nefarious or suspect about naming accomplishments of a professional painter in a biography. Obviously, naming accomplishments is very common in Wikipedia biography articles. It is as though Jbirken is continuing the same argument that Makemi is making, using the same erroneous assumptions. When I saw that Jbirken had only 5 edits before jumping into an AfD with bold and emotionally charged comments, it took all the goodwill I could muster to trust Makemi and assume Jbirken is not a sockpuppet. Perhaps s/he is a friend who thinks alike, who Makemi asked to contribute to an AfD, or maybe some situation I haven't thought of (but fervent contribution to an AfD on the first day must be unusual for someone with 5 minor edits who hasn't even been welcomed to Wikipedia yet!). The 3 facts s/he cites were in the same newspaper article (normal biographical writing for a profile in a paper); was the author of that article in cahoots with me several years ago just to set up this opportunity? And naming a couple web sites where Folzenlogen's name doesn't appear doesn't impress me.

For the lazy, the guideline for notability (the only reason this article is being considered for deletion) says: "This guideline is not Wikipedia policy (and indeed the whole concept of notability is contentious)." The guidelines are clearly uneven; the line right above Painters says "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work" - a far more lenient guideline that would include vastly more people. One "alternative test" says: "Verifiability -- Can all information in the article be independently verified now? (some say) 10 years from now?" Yes, but Makemi argues that the newspapers I got the information from are not important enough. -Exucmember 01:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Can you say Godwin's Law? sheesh. I tend to be very picky in regards to my sources, aka Verifiability. The main problem I had with the Unification church part of the article was that it was based on a geocities site, and I never appreciate geocities as a source. The other sources are equally lame. Re: the more lenient guideline, I see no mentions of awards, and I wouldn't count any of the sources given as "reviews", but community interest puff pieces. As I've already mentioned, different people have different thresholds, I tend to err on the side of exclusion. Mak (talk) 01:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

As for your sock/meat puppet assertion, I encourage you to bring it up at WP:RFCU if it's worrying you so much. Mak (talk) 02:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, but I recommend finding some better sources, adding examples of the artist's work, and remembering to keep the tone scholarly and encyclopedic. --MarkBuckles 05:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Way to be my meatpuppet, Mark :) Mak (talk) 07:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment So, we're talking about an artist here, which makes both sites I mentioned a lot more notable than any article in a local newspaper. Folzenlogen is neither represented by any major gallery, nor is he part of any mayor collection, nor was he part of any major exhibition (please, correct me if I'm wrong). This makes him an rather irrelevant artist, and this has nothing to do with him being member of one church or the other. OK, I'm not a regular WP user, but as an art historian I thought I could contribute something on a topic while idly browsing the AfDs. --Jbirken 10:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

There are more than half a million sites that mention the Unification Church, but very few (that have substantial information) are balanced or neutral. ReligiousTolerance.org is a neutral one, but it represents a superficial perspective and contains errors. The Geocities.com/Unificationism site is balanced rather than neutral, and its quality is apparently appreciated, as it comes up first when "Unificationism" is typed into Google.

The guideline I mentioned is not "the more lenient guideline"; it is the guideline for "authors, editors and photographers," as I said. My point was that the guidelines vary too much across fields, not to apply a guideline to a different field. I know of award-winning writers with many reviews of mutiple books who have never been able to support themselves financially from only their writing. Folzenlogen's paintings are sufficiently valued that he has supported himself entirely through his art for 30 years. I will comment within 24 hours on his shows, gallery affiliation, and prestigeous clients.

I didn't make a "sock/meat puppet assertion"; I said I assumed the reverse (read what I said). I also said "unusual for someone with 5 minor edits" (rather than "irregular" or "suspicious"). And Godwin's law doesn't apply; did you really not understand my point, Makemi? I could just as easily have used the analogy of Moe and Curly, except that Curly didn't put his complaint in writing. -Exucmember 19:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I don't know a great deal about art, but geniuses (even in fields that are less subjective) are frequently under-appreciated in their own lifetimes. I don't know whether this fellow is a genius, but perhaps he ought to be given a chance considering that some people think very highly of him. I'd like to respond to the Unification Church issue; I'm a psychologist (Ph.D.), and I read widely on New Religious Movements (for a paper I never finished) some years ago, especially the Unification Church, Hare Krishna, and Children of God. There are some criticisms which seem to be groundless, such as the one about the Unification Church having been founded as a front group for the Korean CIA, and others where there seem to be legitimate grievances. Nansook Hong's writings about Hyo Jin Moon's violence toward her, and Tim Folzenlogen's writings about Hyun Jin Moon's, are an important addition. -DoctorW 22:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment (notability as an artist): Folzenlogen was represented by Allan Stone, who personally bought many of his paintings. (For those who don't know, Stone also represented Wayne Thiebaud, whose work at that time commanded the highest price of any living artist.) Folzenlogen became the favorite of Stone's biggest client, the President of Morgan Stanley. Other prestigious clients include Procter & Gamble, Barclays Capitol, Bill & Charlotte Ford, etc. His more than 50 solo shows were mostly in New York; take a look at the list (fyi, Bunkamura was the premier exhibition space in Tokyo at the time). Folzenlogen dropped out of the gallery world in 2002, and focuses on public art projects now. Take a look at his web site - it's pretty impressive. -Exucmember 05:11, 29 July 2006 (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.