Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hutman Artcars

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 delete, given that the rewrite did not have much of an effect on the opinions of those taking part in this AFD. --Coredesat 02:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Contents 1 Hutman Artcars 1.1 Available Non-Trivial Sources for Notability in The Artcar World/Genre 1.2 Uninformed Discounting of Non Trivial Sources 1.3 Second total Re-Write 1.4 Ego 1.5 About the Critics 1.6 Latest almost total re-write addresses concerns 1.7 Removed all but 4 short quotations 1.8 Summary of positions

[edit] Hutman Artcars

Hutman Artcars (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

WP:NOT#SOAPBOX Tagged by multiple authors for deletion, author keeps removing tags. Plymouths 21:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_26#Category:Works_of_Art:_Artcars.

Doczilla 05:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Sorry about tag removal. I am now more experienced and have overcome!Conrad Jay Blade 14:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. The article is fundamentally flawed, as it is entirely the work of the primary artist behind the subject of the article. This clearly marks it as Self Promotion and Autobiography under Wikipedia guidelines. I agree with Leebo86 that there could potentially be a good article on this topic, but it would have to be written without direct contribution by the artist, in the article. People who are being written about are welcome to come participate in the discussion side of an article, helping to correct facts or provide useful info, but are not supposed to try to control the article itself. No matter how notable you are -- even if you're President of the United States -- it is extraordinarily bad form to edit an article about yourself. Auros 23:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• • • please reflect upon the rules of wikipedia as written and not your impression of things. Remember autobiography according to wikipedia is not banned it is simply discouraged. It does not matter if you consider it "bad form or not" If an article were written by someone else the references would be exactly the same. No one person should control the article. The key is how the article is written. Is it factual and based on relyable sources. Are statements made backed up and factual. I will remove any part of the article that is not factual and based on sources cited-no problem. Now....dont tell me that I can't do this (I have already been discouraged thanks,,,,just tell me what to change.***-Conrad Jay Blade 14:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand the point of the rules just fine. You're appealing to the letter of the law to evade its spirit. Why should I, or anyone else, waste time contributing to your vanity project? The choice is to either leave you be, taking up space on the servers and degrading the overall quality of the Wikipedia -- contributing to the reputation that Colbert likes to make fun of, when in fact on a lot of topics (especially scientific and technical) it's actually quite good -- or to just delete, and let somebody who doesn't have their ego invested come and create a better article later. Auros 00:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOT#SOAPBOX and WP:COI. The poorly written article is a form of self-promotion. Notability is questionable at best. Article does not follow Wikipedia guidelines for how articles should be written, including the appropriate way in which to cite sources. Doczilla 21:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• • • accusation of self-promotion should be based on examples of how the author has embellished or strayed from the facts as supported by reputable sources. I do not want to self promote. I am simply stating facts which can be supported by reputable sources. If you find statements not backed up by facts/sources let me know broad unsupported critique is not helpful. As for the quality of writing and form- this can be corrected and is being corrected daily as specific comment is received. ***-Conrad Jay Blade 14:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - This article provides no verifiable sources to establish notability. A very messy abuse of Wikipedia. - Shaundakulbara 05:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• • • Obviously Shaundakulbara has not read the article recently where the editor will find many verifiable references, not only references but direct citations which support every statement fully and are suitable to address notibility issues. Again broad unsubstantiated critique is not helpful-Conrad Jay Blade 14:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• Author response
  1. Tags were removed only when re-write was major or totally re-done in other words it was deemed a new document by the author. No trouble re-tagging after major edits but when edits are of such a magnitude a re assessment is in order.
  2. Recently tags were added without explanation on the discussion page. At times those responsible for the tags have done so without any comment- this may be vandalism but I am not an expert.
  3. Comments placed in the discussion area have not been sufficiently in depth to enable the author to make corrections. A reference to a very complex reference page is not helpful. When a tag is added imho the editor should be responsible for defining the problem completely and citing that portion of the reference page that applies.
  4. This article is in no way self promotion. That is to say a factual statement that someone did something, made something etc....has nothing to do with promotion of that individual. In the case of promotion aspect one would have to see some form of promotion- that is ...I did this so you should hire me. Statement of fact or opinion identified as such is not promotion it is history and notable as history.
  5. The author has provided extensive citations of formal as well as informal, local as well as national and international references to demonstrate notability. These are written by others and include researched feature news articles, Chapters in Books, Entries in books,Television documentaries, citations of national awards. Description of the role of the works described in relation to the development of national and local art scenes and art history.
• Essentially the article is a material description of notable fact devoid of self promotion and backed up by significent, in depth and accurate citations. Note that Wikipedia only objects to a high level of self promotion and that autobiographical content is not banned simply discouraged. I have provided citations from Wikipedia pages to support these statements on the page discussion page.

  While I appreciate constructive critique, the essence is "Constructive" I am fortunate to have been working closely with at least one editor who has tried to come close to being constructive. I thank all for their generous donation of time and effort. Conrad Jay Blade 02:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

  • The fact that you are not making money off of this article does not automatically mean it is free of self-promotion. As far as I can tell you're seeking recognition and fame, which is in fact a form of self-promotion.Plymouths 19:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Not at all correct. I am not seeking recognition and fame. I am seeking but to recognize the recognition provided by third parties-not myself. This is a big difference. I present only the actions of others- to select me for inclusion in non-trivial as well as other works. Actually creating a wiki page will open me up to critical review by many parties. Quite the opposite of self promotion. Volunteering to put the article up makes it a free forum for the factual discussion of all sides of my work so I am actually creating more of an opportunity for criticism than for self promotion. Actually to be technical this article is intended to be more about material artworks and that which was written about them by others not myself but it has gotten bogged down with response to tags and critique.-Conrad Jay Blade 00:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Someone needs to sit down and break everything down and rewrite it. It's possible there's a satisfactory article in there somewhere, but I have not taken it upon myself to do so yet. The question is, should it remain until someone chooses to do that, or should it go and return only when it has been approved? Leebo.⁸⁶ 03:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• I also want to add that you're defining "self-promotion" a little too narrowly, Cbladey. Although something may simply be a "statement of fact," it still remains that you are here writing your own article to preserve your information that no one else has yet felt the need to preserve. You're "promoting yourself and your works" even if you don't stand to gain any tangible benefit. There are other ways to preserve the information other than writing on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not the place to do that if it hasn't yet been recorded. Leebo⁸⁶ 13:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• • • Actually as above I am not interested in preserving "information" which has been written by myself. I concentrate in the article on the work of others and that which has been recorded has been recorded.

If I have written poorly in the article I can make further corrrections but the article is for the most part the writing of others, recorded elsewhere, from many sources both trivial and non trivial-now that has been accomplished and is clearly the stated goal I welcome any advice as to how to present it more convincingly and still have it read tolerably- that is not just a list of quotes and sources.

I could just include the words of others which seems an option but it would not be as readable. Again most of the information will be images and facts about the cars- no commentary but have not had time for that yet. I believe that the sources are speaking for themselves. I do not need to self promote-Conrad Jay Blade

• Objective history is present and notable-I am giving it to you and allowing you to share it for the future and preserve it when I am no longer here-it just so happens that I alone possess much of the information-still history. Shall we loose it because I am the sole possessor of it? Even if I qualify the type of information I am providing and refrain from self promotion? I do not need self promotion! Just look at the sources....and there are more....far more exposure than anyone needs. The needs of history are however important. I have many many web pages covering this and other topics.

  History is in the article and will be in the artwork descriptions when I get the time from all this discussion to accomplish it. The point is that if there are problems other than formatting present I can not see them as major or damaging to the conveyance of fact. Nothing is provided other than fact or qualified fact. One must acknowledge that many many facts are based on qualification such as "to the best of my knowledge" The question is will the reader be miss led? References are indeed provided if the reader wishes to get closer to absolutes. Academic practice which is widespread and universal is to deal with facts by the way they are presented. In essence very few facts are absolutes when you really look at it. Third party sources are not always the best the fact is that the first news report of my work came out several years after I had first begun my first artwork.

  Facts are as close as the recorder of the fact can come. "as far as I can tell" may be as close as one can ever get-but it is better than nothing and is qualified. I am trying to be very adaptable to the process here at Wikipedia-I respect it. I could easily be more devious and find someone who knows nothing about the subject to write as I dictate. I would never do this. I find it problematic that when a primary source comes forward to record significant notable history (I have provided many back up sources for this) that they are discounted and discouraged from providing the facts without embelishment or self promotion. IMHO there should perhaps be a process for vetting primary sources. Maybe we should submit a copy of drivers license or copy of an image from a book or newspaper- see...thats me doing that on whatever date...and you could compare that with the ID. I welcome anyone to run around the end of all this,legally, and re-write the short piece. To date the comments have added up to much more than a correction would be. I thank user Leebo86 for his hard work and dedication. Others have been more hostile than helpful. Tolerance of new users is the key to success. Wikipedia is relativly easy to use and there are many conventions to master but helping new users collect and preserve information is a great reward. Conrad Jay Blade 03:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

  • it just so happens that I alone possess much of the information-still history. Shall we loose it because I am the sole possessor of it? — Per our Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research policies: Yes. If you want to record history that has not been recorded before, and history based upon your own firsthand knowledge, Wikipedia is not the place. If you don't record it elsewhere, in the proper places, such as academic journals of history, then yes we shall lose it.

    I find it problematic that when a primary source comes forward to record significant notable history that they are discounted and discouraged from providing the facts — That is because you are not aware that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source. Wikipedia is not a primary source, nor a publisher of first instance. Here is not the place for primary sources to write primary source material. It is not a cheap shortcut around the process of getting primary source material published properly. Please look elsewhere. Uncle G 12:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Delete I agree with Leebo in that theoretically, an article could be made form this. However, its clearly a WP:COI which is one of my particular peeves. Based on some of the talk page comments I have read by the author "I am a visionary artist", it is pure vanity and shameless self-promotion. I can only conclude that pending a complete re-write by a neutral party, the article is not something that I can endorse. Montco 06:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• I find it very strange that with a good number of sources listed on the page for the issue of noteriety as well as for other purposes there is a complaint about this issue-there are lots of souces cited and enough to comply with the noteriety definition. Additionally remember that writing an article about one's self is discouraged it is not banned- it may be hard to do but it is still permitted. At this time the language used is "discouraged". In this case you can not tell me that it can not done you can only tell me that errors have been made, point them out and provide me with the way to correct them. Empty critique attempting to ban something that is merely "discouraged" can only be perceived from this point of view as personal attack. WhatI need to see here is a specifc problem and this is how to fix it. I mean specific problems. I see one way to improve the article is to not simply list sources that editors seem not to have the courtesy of looking up but to cite brief statements from them. I shall do that. Then I will have the words of others and from the type of sources which fulfill the noteriety definition. One problem is with video. I have one article based on a script but that is all. Two videos I have on tape. I suppose I could transcribe short exerpts and include them. That will take a while so I shall concentrate on citations from books and news article studies.Hope this helps. Now....if there is objection to a legal article pinpoint mistakes specifically and I will address them. Note. Due to the wording it is very clear that I do not have to have a third party do it. Note that I have already responded to the vanity charges and made corrections. If you are to provide critique be sure that it is based on the way the article looks at the time of writing. Writing about something that has clearly been addressed and changed may be perceived as less than constructive critique. Conrad Jay Blade 14:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete or at best, Userfication into Cbladey. The author has not clearly established notability.

  This quote:

  Ten years ago, Conrad Bladey's '78 yellow Dodge Omni needed a new transmission. He didn't have the cash, so he just let it sit for a while in front of his house. When some kids defaced the car with an Andover High School sticker, Bladey didn't let it bother him. Instead he put a couple of bumper stickers of his own on it. By the time Bladey got the transmission fixed, about a year later, the car was covered in stickers. "Sticker Car" was his first art car. Now, after transforming three more cars into artistic expressions, Bladey is known as a car artist-Source:"Cars With Attitude Gear Up for First Night. "Nicole M. Miller. The Washington Post. Washington, D.C.: Dec 28, 2000. p. C.01

• Only establishes that Bladey is a car artist, not that he is one of any particular distinction. Speaking as someone who has been featured along with their art car in the newspaper on a couple occasions, newspaper articles do not automatically prove notability. Particularly when the article in question is about an event in general (in this case a First Night celebration), and the person in question is mentioned in, apparently, one paragraph of it.

  As for this quote:

  The noted artcar movie maker and well known author Harrod Blank noted: It is this tactile element that attracts many people to work with different materials to break up the stereotypically smooth and shiny surface most cars have...Finished textures vary from the smooth bumnper stickers on Conrad Bladey's Sticker Car (photo included) to the rough and rugged craters of the Marsmobile....-Harrod Blank, Art Cars: The Cars, the Artists, the Obsession, the Craft, Lark Books,2002, p.28.

• I own a copy of the book referenced here. It is 144 pages long, and consists mainly of two-page spreads featuring artcars of distinction (as determined by the author). These articles have one or more large photos of the artcars, descriptions of the vehicle and artist and other relevant information. I believe (do not have the book in front of me) that Mr. Bladey's car is mentioned once in the book, in the line quoted above. If his vehicles were notable as he asserts, would they not get a full layout and writeup in the book, rather than one passing mention as an example of a surface texture? Furthermore, the mentioning of this book under the in depth study of the page is grossly misleading. A one line mention is far from an in depth study.

  The Articles Referring to Local Significance section does not in any way make clear how these articles note the local significance of his vehicles. Several of them are clearly about a general event rather than his vehicles in particular. As for the others, mention in a newspaper may mean the subject is of particular importance, however it does not guarantee such.

  This collection of artcars also represents the largest known number of artcars created by a single artist in Baltimore, and for Baltimore, Maryland the Hutman "School" or "Studio" represents a part of historical development of the Baltimore Art Scene as it has in-fact operated for a period of time in the region of Baltimore for at least 20 years when the first artcar produced "Sticker" was begun.(source:personal communication of fact from the Artist)

• This statement is a perfect example of the gross flaws throughout this article. It contains a falsely reasoned statement of importance(see #1 below), incredibly convoluted and confusing grammar, and an invalid source (personal conversation).

  #1: Ignoring the potential for a quantity vs. quality debate, being the largest producer of an artcar in the Baltimore area is not inherently notable. As is fairly clear in the Art_car article, artcar artists are rare, and as such in most areas there are only a few. I personally have produced at least three artcars, and have plans for a fourth, This may well make me tone of the most prolific artcar creators in Connecticut, that does not however make me notable as I would guess the total number of artcar artists in CT as being in the dozens.

  These reasons, along with the lack of any authors aside from the autobiographical one, the need for a massive re-write for both wikification and basic coherency, the author's repeated deleting of tags all make, to me, a strong case for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Improbcat (talk • contribs) 2007-01-25 16:23:06Improbcat 20:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

(sorry for not signing this, by the time I got to the end of editing this so it would show up like I wanted it to I simply forgot to add a signature)Improbcat 20:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• • • The comment above does not reflect recent changes which have inserted the works of others which are now the principal content of the article. The comment fails to consider all of the sourced evidence provided which contains all manner of information both trivial and non trivial with numerous sources for each. There is nothing wrong with including all manner of information written by others. I believe that there is enough non trivial (as in multiple) information composed by others to sadisfy the notability requirement. One must look at all of the information together, actually follow up the sources etc....Repeated selection as worthy of inclusion in non trivial sources is significant.-Conrad Jay Blade 00:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Please, you people who are debating this back and forth, sign your comments. It's getting confusing trying to keep track of who's saying what to whom while reading this. No matter which position you're taking, you don't want your remarks to get overlooked because readers get confused. Doczilla 18:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• According to the history page prior source was (cur) (last) 16:23, 25 January 2007 Improbcat (Talk | contribs) (→Hutman Artcars - arguements for deletion added)

  The sources cited adequately define the following-

• 1. I am an artcar artist (I can not say so myself I have used local news media sources which should accomplish this with out being guilty of self reporting)
  2. My work (all of the cars) has been recognized as "Art Cars" by a jurried major respectable municipal event over many years. As well as a juried national event where I have appeared with three of the cars. (again I cited local media of trusted respectable sources)
  3. I am part of the history of the art scene in Baltimore and to date a major player. If in an area one person has done more than others that is information of significence. Not any reflection on quality but I have evidenced my participation in the art scene and as such part of its history and until someone does more than I I currently hold a position of significance in that history etc....My work is part of the history of the art car in Baltimore and this is sourced.

     Essentially editors have asked me to prove my existence as artist, as creators of works acknowledged as art cars and having a particular standing in the art car world which is not "ordinary" I had to do so using the reporting and documentation of others. It has been accomplished. Moving on.

  4. When work is included in major respectable publications that is a degree of notability. There is a differnce in magnitude between those who are not selected to be included in important and reputable publications as examples (Blank) or as focus for chapters (Lake) and those who are not. If one is included in such works one has a certain level of notability.

     I cite the following notable inclusions and documentaries and feature (these are not news articles) ] Notable Sources Illustrating the Significance of Hutman Artcars Locally and Nationally [edit] In-Depth Studies "The Passions of Conrad Jay Bladey" Carl Schoettler; The Sun; Sep 6, 2003; 1.D; A detailed study of the work of Conrad Bladey in the area of Artcars "Conrad Bladey", "Hometown Portraits." Series, Channel 2,WMAR, Baltimore. This video documentary visits the studio studies the art cars and interviews the artist. Here in the Baltimore The videographer, Peter Kulsziski, comments on the program. "Among the subjects of Kulsziski's profiles -- he's done about 35 so far -and Conrad Bladey, who drives a car literally covered with bumper stickers." -"Delightful `Portraits' make debut; TV: Cameraman Pete Kulsziski talks to everyday people with extraordinary results.; Radio and Television; [FINAL Edition] Chris Kaltenbach. The Sun. Baltimore, Md.: Oct 28, 1998. pg. 2.E " The documentary is an in-depth study of Conrad Bladey, the Studio and the Hutman Artcars. The documentary evidences the vehicles and the art, and the artist selected as a notable aspect of the Baltimore Art Scene. "Monster Nation", Part 11, The Learning Channel. This in-depth documentary focuses on the significance of the Art Cars, Visits the Studio and discusses artistic techniques via an interview with the artist. Weird Maryland (Matt Lake, Sterling Publishing, 2006, p.117-119) Chapter and photos documenting the cars and the artist as a notable aspect of the state of Maryland selected by the authors. The Sticker Car featured in a photo documentary book of Baltimore sights by Dan Rodricks (Baltimore, Charm City, Towerly, 1997, p.123) Photo in a collection of what are considered important landmarks of the City of Baltimore. The photo of Conrad Bladey and Sticker Car I is included on a page of other notable artcars of Baltimore indicating the place of the artist and his works in the history of the Art Scene in Baltimore. Harrod Blank, Art Cars: The Cars, the Artists, the Obsession, the Craft, Lark Books,2002, p.28. Sticker Car selected in a collection of Art Cars from across the nation by a notable author and film documenter of the Art Car community. Voice of America Television ("Art on Wheels"\Craig Fitzpatrick, 01 Apr 2004, http://www.bcpl.net/~cbladey/voahut.html) Detailed study of the studio, Art Cars and the Artist broadcast internationally.

     Once again there are artists and then there are artists who multiple times have been included in what one might call upper level or significant or researched documentaries. This inclusion changes the status of the individual.

     Then I can go on to national recognition. There are people who take part in national events and then there are people who win prizes in those events. There is a notability difference. Winning first prize in one's category-Daily Driver in what is acknowledged to be the most important event for art cars in the world Houston Art Car Parade-a juried event. and one who simply has an artcar or several.

     The editor above has not utilized all of the sources which appear in the article. It is important to do so. The local articles establish my existence and role as a part of the history of artcars in Baltimore- for example the distinction of the first person to have designed and created 5 artcars if you will....not concerned about the national importance of this but it is none the less a milestone in history....not looking at significance here as much as the fact that I am a player of note at least now in the history of the art scene in baltimore.....

     The several documentaries, selection for coverage in important books of note, and national and worldwide distribution of these (see voice of america) indicate notability which has been bestowed upon me by important writers. Again this is much more notable than someone who has just created an artcar or several. I would believe that these authors and documentary filmers did not create their work at random. Selection for these is a sign of notability.

     For example of all the art car artists in the country few were selected to be featured and researched for an episode of Monster Nation-cable television series on the Learning Channel. I was selected. The research was in depth and production took place over a month with research and filming. The production covered all my artworks, studio. I have traveled out of state to places I have never been.....people recongnize my notability and come up to me and mention my inclusion on the program.....

     If the total number of citations is considered I believe I have overcome criticism. As for writing and style that is being worked out as soon as possible and will be complete certainly when the major criticisms are dealt with and those tags removed.

     That the artcar world is small is immaterial. There remain important artists of varying degrees and unimportant artists. Wikipedia determines this based upon inclusion in important, selective works of note. Sorry that some do not consider me as important as others-that happens with all communities and I don't aim to please anyone. However I can cite the proper sources required and have done so adequately. Not after vanity or self promotion. I have been very much factual in this very short article. I state facts, back them with citation. I am only promoting the preservation of history which is notable. Conrad Jay Blade 19:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• Carthedral won first place at Houston and doesn't have a wiki article. Holy Mercatoyd won first place for the same category you did - daily driver - and doesn't have a wiki article. In fact about 8 cars a year get first place in some category or other and don't have wiki articles. You AGREED with me on the artcars page that we can't include every car that has won a prize because there would be HUNDREDS. Harrod Blank CREATED the book you're citing as your source and doesn't have a wiki article. What makes you more special than all of them? Also, I would disagree that Houston is the most important event for art cars in the world - it happens to be the BIGGEST but that doesn't make it most important. It's also one of the few that happens to offer prizes - ArtCarFest doesn't, Artscape doesn't.Plymouths 19:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• I think Plymouths's perspective on this from another art car hobbyist is important. I don't know a thing about art cars (nor had ever heard of them before this article), so it's hard for me to argue notability within the field. The more and more we get into this, the less and less it feels as though notability has actually been established. At the very least, Cbladey's efforts would be better spent writing articles about other notable art car people and events, rather than himself. Leebo⁸⁶ 20:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The fact that other important cars do not have articles is immaterial. Both of those cars are notable beyond a doubt. The fact that they dont have articles is that the artists or others have not taken the time to write them. (I can see why as it is a lot of trouble, time and effort). On the Art Car page one is dealing with a representative sample of a whole. I stated that a rotation of featured cars would be best.

Harrod is worthy of a page but it would be hard to write it himself and he has not been documented much more than I have. A few more articles but of the same type and if you dont like the notable publications written about me you won't accept the publications written about Harrod....more of them perhaps he as as notable as a president and I am only as notable as a congressman for example... but I am certainly more notable than either of the ordinary cartists taking part in this debate. Far more articles about me, far more documentaries far more worthy books.And a much longer time in the field....So what is the answer....I think it is to consult the wiki instructions in regard to notability. I shall paste them here soon and we can check them off.

Ok I will qualify- houston is the biggest event in the world not my favorite either. My favorite event is when I pull in to the I 95 rest stop in laurel. However it is probably either equal to artcar fest or more important but importantly they have a serious juried show which is important (I know of no other serious juried shows as in juried shows in the art world with experts and rules) .

Independent decision I thought that is what the wiki system wanted to see. I have also won prizes and been selected for honoraria (which were limited to a few-one year an early one I was the only one selected out of a large field at artscape to receive the only one...) in other competitions. The point is what constitutes notability? At least I have put my record out in an objective way independent of my own voice. The wiki rules should be able to overcome diverse opinion.

Specifically was I mentioned in the type of sources mentioned in the wiki guidelines independent of myself (non-trivial) simple...It does not matter if you like one artist or another it matters what has been written about them of what type of source.

While editors of an artcar background are interesting it is important that concerns about deletion be addressed by a broader audience as artcar artists both of whom writing here I know are far from any unbiased sources. I respect and appreciate their time and effort however, we have had differences in the past that I fear are getting in the way of an objective consideration of the sources which I have used to back up my claims of notability which are material facts. Not Opinions!Conrad Jay Blade 22:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

My notability is COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY IRRELEVANT since I'm not a self-aggrandizing narcicist who is trying to create a page for herself. Plymouths 22:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

For the record, if Plymouths and myself can not be considered unbiased sources in regards to your notability, than there is absolutely no way that YOU can be considered an unbiased source regarding YOUR notability. And as such this means the article is biased and thus valid for deletion. Improbcat 23:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Technically, bias isn't a criterion for deletion. Non-notability is though, so if you can prove extensively one way or the other, the closing admin will probably look at that. It's hard right now given the state of the article. Leebo⁸⁶ 00:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• • • note that I carefully avoid using my own words to develop notability. Everything is carefully sourced and the actions of others-movie makers, authors, events fully documented make the case for notability-I am just the writer I have avoided opinions I point only to the facts-Conrad Jay Blade 14:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Available Non-Trivial Sources for Notability in The Artcar World/Genre

• • Perhaps it will be helpful to document how, in the Art Car World notability is obtained.(as best as I can tell) Unlike many Genres of art which have many dedicated academic joiurnals devoted to them and a long established series of tests which artists have to undergo to obtain notability the artcar world is a recent development. Therefore we do not yet have journals or a large range of scholarly writing available. The artcar world does however have milestones of a sort that can be used to rank individual artists and their works. Even though we are a new genre there are ways that noteriety can be assessed. As with any other genre some artists are ordinary while others are notable while still others are the most notable. Wikipedia does not deny notability to all but the most notable (example being congressmen are notable presidents and world leaders may be most notable-both are included...)

So what do we have in the artcar world with which to measure notability-

1. Has the artist created an art car (admission to the process)

2. Has the artist been recognized by juried shows and awarded prizes (this is a convention in other genres whereby a jury is selected to review an entry in a competition and prizes or admission to an event are awarded based upon this independent jury)

3. Has the artist become part of the Local Art Car Scene in an important way-do they hold or have they held for a period of time records- for example have they created more artworks than others and maintained that position over time- have they brought more art works to competition, have they been written about more in he local media. The ordinary artcar artist would be at one end the notable one would be at the other.

4. Has the artist received awards from a major rather than minor local juried events. There are a wide range of art car events. Among those which give prizes the Houston event for example would serve as an example of a National event whereas Artscape in Baltimore although sometimes cars from outside the region attend is primairly a regional event. A notable artist would be one who has won recognition Honoraria, admission to juried events of both types. I suppose if one wants to get picky one could google artscape in baltimore and the houston event and determine which has the most entries but it is most likely that the Houston event is the largest juried show.....

5. Has the artist been selected to be the subject of documentaries or television programs. While one could determine that selection for inclusion as the focus of documentaries may be a random act I doubt that those producing these would agree. If an artist has never been selected for such coveraege I would say that they were not as notable as one that has consistantly been selected over time by several. Of the artists that have been selected for inclusion in documentaries and television programs of a non news nature some will be ordinary in that they are selected once or twice and not consistantly over time, and some will have been only been selected for local documentaries. These would be more ordinary than the notable artist who has been selected for local national and international broadcast.

6. Moving to Books. There are books which are casual and there are books which attempt to be selective. Selection for inclusion in books could be a random process but I believe that if you ask authors they would disagree. I would maintain that those not selected for inclusion were ordinary where those who were included were more notable. If an author wishes for example to illustrate art car surface treatment it is generally assumed by the reader that the example selected pleases the author more than others even though this is not stated it is implied by the inclusion. No one can really tell but when an artwork is published it has a quality ok maybe only slightly elevated from the ordinary. It is none the less a part of notability.

Other books are defined as works capturing the significant. That is an author studies the city and finds things that are notable. The book has this as its purpose. Monuments, Houses, landmarks and in one case an artcar or several. These could be included randomly but not when the purpose of the book is to capture the notable. An artwork appearing in such a book is more notable therefore than one that was not included.

Notability in books is also defined by the length of the entry. Weird maryland is a book surveying the entire state of maryland. They wanted to include an artcar or two. In their attempt to single out notable places, landmarks and individuals they selected one artist rather than another. The ordinary artist not included the notable artist has been included. Of course one could insist that this process of editing is random I think not.

I hope this survey of notabilitiy in the artcar world will help editors to assess the relative notability of my work. The notability threshold is important. I do not believe that one has to be the "most notable" to be included. One simply has to be "notable".

Another important point is that one article or one entry does not make one notable. Notability is the sum of many parts in many dimensions. Yes the inclusion of one photo is only slightly notable but added with all the other aspects of notability it assists with making the case. Some achievements are more notable than others but all notable achievements should be considered.

If one is judged not notable one must know what is lacking from the case for notability. The question to be asked is what hasn't been achieved.

The artcar world is a bit more difficult to work with because we are not yet covered by a large corpus of academic work and writing. This does not mean that there are not ways to judge the relative notability of an artcar art work or artist.(note I do not wish to assert that there is anything wrong with ordinary art car artists. The artcar community is large and diverseConrad Jay Blade 14:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment regarding notability criteria

Wikipedia discusses notability as follows:"A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and each other. All topics must meet a minimum threshold of notability in order for an article on that topic to be included in Wikipedia. This requirement ensures that there exists enough source material to write a verifiable, encyclopedic article about the topic."

It should be quite clear that I have provided "multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject". In addition I have included other sources but if you read the direct citations you will find that I have met the standard.See my discussion of the means to obtain notability in the Art Car Community should you believe the sources are trivial. Thanks! -Conrad Jay Blade 15:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

OK let's take a look at these multiple non-trivial sources. You've got a passing mention in a book by harrod (fails non-trivial), you've got a passing mention on monster nation (fails non-trivial), a passing mention in the washington post (fails non-trivial) and about 8 mentions in the baltimore sun (can't be counted as separate sources). What's left that potentially counts as non-trivial and independant? Weird Maryland and the Voice of America video. I don't think that counts as "multiple". And none of the sources are things we can actually check on (sorry, no, I don't think it's reasonable to expect us to fly to baltimore to look up newspaper archives)! Not that ALL of your sources are required to be readable online but it would be nice if at least a FEW were. I do a google search for your name and the first couple of pages of results are all your webpages and blogs and other things you wrote on message boards (or pages that compile links that link back to your pages). If I actually do a search for "Hutman ArtCars" there's even less. Why are you SO DESPARATE for fame? You keep asking for specific suggestions - here's a specific suggestion: wait until someone else decides you're notable and writes an article about you. That would solve all of your problems. Meanwhile try to edit things on wikipedia that you don't have a conflict of interest when writing about to try to get a feel for the place. You picked about the most difficult way possible to jump in. You're right that there are a lot of rules and guidelines and it can be a lot to absorb - if you do it while writing about a subject you have less emotional involvement in it will be easier. Plymouths 17:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uninformed Discounting of Non Trivial Sources

1. Selection by an important author for inclusion no matter how brief is significant.(Blank)

2.Monster Nation- An entire Segment of a program (like a chapter in a book, long not passing and in depth interviews and research and comprehensive coverage-a national television program

3. Weird Maryland- Significant portion of a chapter of a critical overview of significant sites, persons and places in Maryland. Article and picture of Magnet truck spaning two pages. Article something like 3-4 pages..

4.Voice of America- a documentary, not news piece.

5.Chanel 2 video documentary-in depth,non trivial independent-one of a handful of people in baltimore selected for study.

6.The Passions of Conrad Bladey in the Sun- Feature article, well researched not trivial not news.

7.Dan Rodricks- "Baltimore" photo of myself and sticker car as representative of the city alongside all of the most important landmarks, buildings etc.....non trivial independent and selective

Inclusion in non-trivial sources means that someone has decided that I am notable and has selected to include me and my work in a non trivial source.

I could also add in the participation in juried shows, exhibition of my work at the American Visionary Art Museum (I think July 1998-9)......winning local and national honoraria and awards.....

I also wish to point out that Wikipedia does have a Good Faith Rule. This editor- Plymouths has made several statements re. fame etc. which indicate that there may be an absence of good faith.Conrad Jay Blade 13:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• • • Try this thought. Fame is being written about in an article. Notability is being chosen to be included in a work-documentary,feature article, television story even a photo to represent something.....I have described the monster nation piece. It is not passing mention. It is a chapter in a program as in a book. When you look at television scripts these are chapters or segments. It is a whole mini documentary. A tour of all the cars, of the studio, interviews with me, family others.

The Voice of America Piece- I dont think anyone would doubt that the VOA is not a trivial source. The VOA produces news stories- brief pieces. The piece cited is not a news item. The Editor/writer looked around and decided what to write about. He made a selection. He chose me.

(VOA is just one of several media outlets that did this- you see there are more than one who out of the available field selected me....) This is also a mini documentary. Two days of interviews, background research and all about my work.

News articles are of two types- basic reporting which I cite for information and feature articles written as "Studies" in my case a study of an artist and his work which I also cite for the purpose of notability. The paper asks who of all the possible people out there shall we take the time to do an in depth reporting on- this involves research, interviews, vetting, as well as writing. Not a passing reference.

I have been selected for in-depth articles- this goes beyond trivial mention or simple news coverage.....now one can assume that inclusion in books etc. is a totally random practice. I dont think this is the case. I believe inclusion in in depth pieces- non trivial sources- involves assessment of the significance of the subject and a reflection on notability. I may not be the Most notable but I am confident that I am not the most ordinary. Hard to figure out when one gets notable I have just used the Wikipedia sources to determine that-looks like it sould work. I would appreciate taking beter care with the sources I cite. I believe that all I have to do is cite them-I have gone further than needed by providing brief exerpts from them. It is the readers job to find the sources and consult them.

I provide a breakdown on the article concerning the nature of sources and why they are included. You can tell which are used to demonstrate notability. The VOA article is linked to the article. (yes I am working on format but articles are evolving things) The Baltimore Sun has an archive on line, I save money by accessing it via my local library branch. If you cant get to a Maryland library branch try a college library.

Wierd maryland is in bookstores at least around here....(actually a very good book I can not count the number of people who have seen me in the book and told me all about it...)Again though about weird maryland like it or not they had the potential to include any other maryland artist and they picked me, dont think it was random. (just for information the Weird NJ book has a section like the one they did for me on Hoop- another notable art car artist.)

Fame? Couldnt care less. But things accumulate. One ask? "could it be that I am notable?" lets see....why not. Right now I am cutting back on travel and festivals. I have been to so many. I get a large number of parade requests now and have to trim that back. I am content with the notability that exists- When I get out of a plane to attend the Houston festival dozens of people come up to me and know who I am and I have never met them, every day someone comes up to me and tells me that they saw me on Monster Nation (seems to have been re-run lately), The association with AVAM is amazing. Many come up to me and tell me hey you are in the AVAM (visionary art car museum which I have distanced myself from years ago) The public response and on such a high level is what counts in the area of fame.....but really at its foundation the therapy created via the artcar creation process is the most helpful. I dont care how people respond - one way or the other making a response happen is enjoyable.

Why did I pick the hardest way to write? Because it is there! Why do I keep at it- because I want to be famous....no....it is because I want to win or at least make my best case!

Remember- Wikipedia does not ban self written pieces they just "strongly discourage" this means either someone tells me how to correct the article in specific terms and I will do so. Or that no one has ever done this before and I am a trail blazer and shall do the best that I can.

Thanks for your comments, always helpful. There are many art car artists who qualify as notable. I believe I have cited multiple non trivial in depth reporting. Some have more multiples than other others are more notable than others. The threshold is crossed when "multiple" exists. Isn't that more than one? I believe art cars should be more represented on Wikipedia. I believe that the artists themselves can make the case for notable and write in such a way that they themselves are not speaking but that the cited facts and sources are speaking for them. I am trying hard to do this and if I have not overcome myself show me how specifically. Conrad Jay Blade 18:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

No, there are not MANY notable artcar artists going by the wikipedia definition of notability. Being notable within the artcar community (i.e. known by lots of your fellow artists) is not the same as notability in the general sense. I would say that there are an exceedingly SMALL number of notable artcars and artists - and most of them are people who are notable for other reasons and ALSO happened to build an artcar or several - Andy Warhol, for example, made artcars but is notable for his groundbreaking art in other forms, Harrod Blank is notable for his documentary work (to which his artcars are related but are not the main source of notability) (Harrod is on my short list of things to create articles on when I have time). As you said above "The artcar world is a bit more difficult to work with because we are not yet covered by a large corpus of academic work and writing." - you know what that means? It means that artcars have only just made it into the category of notability as an entire genre and as such individual artists and individual vehicles (or collections of vehicles) within that genre are by definition less notable. Why don't you take a breather and go give some input on the folk art article? You said elsewhere that's something you wanted to contribute on. You have experience and knowledge on the topic, NOBODY is going to dispute the notability of it, and the article itself is tagged with needing input from an expert. Plymouths 23:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• • • • I do not dispute that others are more notable than I nor that others are notable for other things-that does not matter. Lots of things I may be more notable for rather than artcars but...the task is demonstrating according to Wikipedia rules that I am notable, my work is notable. One does this by citing the work of others, non-trivial sources and more than one. Now either I have done this or I have not. Documentaries and books are not trivial sources and I have appeared in a good number of them by invitation- selected for coverage. Do not confuse these sources with others which may be trivial and are included to be complete. I did not say artcar artists have not had notable coverage because it exists I just said that artcar artists have not had as much as is available in other fields but it is quite clear that documentaries have been made, serious studies created, books written so that now artcar artist are obtaining enough notability. Again- some are always more notable than others. You dont have to be the greatest you just have to deomonstrate you have crossed a defined threshold.-Conrad Jay Blade 00:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• I'm thinking... most people take issue with the autobiographical sections, and Cbladey says it's really supposed to be about the cars. So why not just remove the stuff that relates to you, Cbladey, and leave only the info on the cars. What they are and what they look like should be enough. It seems like you're trying to write this massive article about yourself when there's really only a little bit to say. Leebo⁸⁶ 00:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • • actually the article is not that massive. The intent indeed is to focus on the artworks. I categorized the article today as: artworks-artcars. The portion now written is to be a mini intoduction of the artist based on including only the words and references to others. I think I could improve this by removing my summations- would that work? It would read more like a resume but I would clearly be totally out of it-one solution it would work for me. Thanks for the constructive help which moves toward a solution-Conrad Jay Blade 00:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Second total Re-Write

I have elminated all of the statements made by the author except introduction (one has to write something general introducing the topic) and definitions of videos and articles briefly such as: Documentary, Feature Article. Significant background of individual artcars that is awards, inclusion in juried shows, events and other achievements will be inserted once the concerns in the tags have been addressed.'Conrad Jay Blade 02:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• Reply. But now you've turned it into a quote farm. Doczilla 02:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)a

• • • Remember that this is only part of the article. It is only the part that provides background for the artworks/introduction. There appears to only be this way for me to compose it otherwise people object to my voice. I think as a backgrounder for the cars and their descriptions it should work. Readers are not misslead and through independent notable sources they can get an idea of how the art work came to be. If it is terse and uninteresting well....perhaps someone else can provide in an independent voice transitions that reflect on the meaning of the citations. At some point my work becomes significant in the local community....at some point nationally...at some point more notable....Yes! somenone anyone, can put in the words that I as author, and artist can not voice due to restrictions. That is the wonder of an evolving document. This is just a start. Once this is clear of tags (I have to do one spell check in the morning but that one should go...soon) I can add in the meat of the article which will also be only materially described. In my situation I must count on the community to flesh it out. But...I have eliminated so much.....ego, personal gain etc.....However the sources are now documented as demanded and it is evident that many of them are not trivial and that the not trivial are several....the only thing missing are the awards via national and local jurried shows which will be in the material description of each car. So....for now a bit dry and terse but with community involvement it can evolve and once the tags are gone I will invest more time in adding the cars and their particular information and leave that for the community to flesh out too. Hope all this work helps, but I want to act on all constructive critique for which I am thankful.-Conrad Jay Blade 04:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• • • • • Major Emphasis of this page: Description of the Artcars

The Purpose of this article is to describe the cars. The section will contain exactly this:

1. Year make and model of the car

2. Date car became an Art Car

3. Technologies used-methods, materials

4. Evolution of the art from start to present

5. Awards, Participation in events juried, non juried.

6. Citations of the car specifically.

7. Vision of the car-that which it is supposed to project

As the article evolves it is hoped that independent critique of all kinds can be added in a critique or review section. At the present time there are problems with the introduction to the article which need to be resolved. Constructive criticism or editing of the article will be greatly appreciated. Once concerns about the article introduction are resolved I will insert the material descriptions indicated for the car section. Conrad Jay Blade 14:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ego

Well congratulations - you've managed to turn the code for this page into such a mess that I can't find the proper place to reply. Anyway, in regards to your statement that I am not assuming good faith because I said you have an ego I have only this to say - creating a page about yourself is inherently an ego-driven act, no matter what you put in it. Your repeated arguments here and in other talk pages are only further evidence of said ego. Besides - good faith and ego aren't mutually exclusive - you honestly believe you're worthy of inclusion here. The problem comes in when you've got half a dozen authors disagreeing with that and you're not respecting their conclusions. At this point it's up to the admins to sort out (and any other authors that might like to weigh in). I'm done with it. Plymouths 14:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• • • sorry for the difficulties of reading. I have just started here on Wikipedia but seems I am learning. I have tried to clean up things as best as time will allow and to carefuly make my responses distinct and to respond to as many comments as possible and to sign my comments. I think it is still readable and like other such discussions has evolved through time.

[edit] About the Critics

I appreciate all criticism and take it in good faith

• It is important to note that although testimony from within the artcar community may be helful it may also be less than helpful
  • • Two critics who have written here: Plymouths and Improbcat are both artcar artists who I have encountered on several ocasions in a variety of forums. While I must take their critique in good faith I suggest that as artcar artists they may or may not have a conflict of interest derived from the nature of the artcar community as one with competing philosophies and points of view if not one also with competing artists and artworks. I do not wish to state that conflicts are present but it is a possible downside when evaluating fellow artists. Often conflicts are revealed via tone in writing and statements focused on the individual rather than upon the subject matter being discussed. I draw you attention also to the length of time a writer has been a member of the community which somewhere in wikipedia is discussed in relation to discussions concerning deletion.Again I value all constructive critique and as you have seen I have spent a considerable time addressing specifics involved. I note also that it is clearly evident that some of the crtics have voiced opinons and made statements that they have not taken the time to read the article fully nor look up sources. Another concern is that often critique has taken the form of generalized blanket statements rather than specics. It is one thing to point out a problem but another to describe the problem in such a way that the critique can be constructive. It is also not helpful to be pointed to wikipedia's volumes of help material or even a major section of it. With pages of help it is hard to pinpoint the one line or two that is of concern. I wonder about critcs who seem not to be specific in a constructive sense. I am greatly appreciative of all of the assistance prvided here.

[edit] Latest almost total re-write addresses concerns

• just finished almost total re-write
• Added more introduction text
• added material descriptions without opinons concerning each art car
• added external links to artists web pages about each car indicating clearly that they were simply available for those who wished to learn of the philosophies etc...of the artist, and find more information, images etc. (still thinking about link format for external links. Must find rule or source of formatting....let me know how it has to be done. Currently if there is a choice I feel that for those printing out an article it is helpufl to have the entire link rather than the link title.....
• I am currently working on finding out if I can spell check via my browser but if i can not I will shortly spell check in microsoft word.
• If you have any specific concerns let me know what they are on the article talk page please include suggestions on how to correct the problems.
• I will soon include my own photos of the cars I have to find out how to do this.
• I will also include external links in the reference area to events, media archive sources, and where possible to the television program sites so sources can be found.
• I will also assemble a collection of web references independent of myself and place those in as external links.
• This article can be edited by others and should accept critique on way or the other of the artcars and the artist. I will include polite critique either in the car or artist section as time and space permits. Or perhaps I should set up a "reviews of the art and artist section" is that appropriate....that way those wishing to edit the page can include their opinions and point of view.

I will experiment by putting in a what do you think or reviews of the art and artist section.

My goal is to try to implement all of the points of view received here. I have done so whereever the pathway has been clear. Thanks for your effortsConrad Jay Blade 15:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Some progress has been made on the article, with regard to the readability and the tone. It appears to take a more encyclopedic view on the cars, featuring facts on the cars and images. The autobiographical sections have been greatly reduced. The sections below are still a bit heavy on quotes, but this is more of a writing concern than a deletion concern. Any other thoughts? Leebo⁸⁶ 20:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• The article remains an autobiographical mess unfit for an encyclopedia. Topic is insufficiently notable. Again: Delete. Doczilla 01:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• • • • • Thanks for the comment. Notability is spelled out by Wikipedia. There are plenty of Non-Trivial sources, completely cited in the article for you to read and evaluate. Wikipedia contains several references to Art Car and The Houston Art Car Parade and Outsider and Visionary Art-must be a valid topic! As for autobiography well the article is about my artworks and unless you know something more than I -they can not yet write. I have not provided anything more than the material facts and anything about me has been written by others and I would remove that if not for the other issues such as notability. I suppose I can remove all of the quotes leaving only citations but then it would be even harder for folks in your position to read them but that is a possibility.
• Thanks again but unfortunately there are too few specifics for me to act on in this comment. Does Wikipedia ban messes? Let me know where to find that bit. Actually one man's mess might be just another man's Artcar but, you see that doesn't matter! In good faith I let you have your beliefs but simply reserve for safe keeping : the facts -Conrad Jay Blade 03:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• Reiterate Delete based on the re-write as I have seen nothing to pursuade me to change my opinion. Montco 01:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• • • • • Let's see. You were concerned with the Visionary Artist Claim (actualy the term is a bit messy....I started out a visionary but you see when someone calls you an artist and then you slip and call your work art some day it is all over and then once you drive from your house and park in an event you are no longer an outsider....These days I am more an Artist Visionary and an insider outsider-so maybe I need folks to call me those and I will be on to a new reality). If you havent noticed it is no longer there. There is nothing there about me that has been written by me! One of the sources uses the word. Did you know that it is a fact that self written articles are not banned in Wikipedia! That's right. They are just "strongly discouraged". That makes the problem not if but how should the article be written. Any concrete, constructive recommendations would be highly constructive for this debate. I am always glad to consider your comments. Thanks for taking part.

• • • • • • I wonder why some editors have blanked pages-must be some sort of concern there. I am too new here to know about such things. How would anyone know about a person or their credibility if all their personal pages were blanked....maybe they ran out of computer space...who knows.... Conrad Jay Blade 03:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed all but 4 short quotations

Removed almost all of the quotations in a major edit. The remaining quotes sketch the basic history of the art works- basically beginning middle and present day. These will help the readers to understand how the artworks came to be. References to the removed quotes still in the reference section. I also cleaned up sentences which had suffered from the many edit processes.Conrad Jay Blade 04:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• • • This page has totally been re-done and hardly resembles the original article. Those interested can always re-assess and make changes,etc. But it is basically a start over in concept, organization and content as it relates to original document.Conrad Jay Blade 16:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• • • • • Following editorial suggestions I have put double brackets around all important words.

• • • • I have inserted internal links to relevant Wikipedia articles.

• • • • cleaned up minor grammer and writing errors-continuous process will make any changes suggested.

• • • • I appologize for the "messy" formating of this page. The argument has caused me to modify my original philosophy and statements. It may be helpful to read this page topically as well as chronologically. Perhaps in error I responded to editors topically that Is I inserted response after their statements....sorry but it seemed logical....I continue to appreciate the constructive criticism provided. If I am provided with a specific problem it will be addressed in a timely manner. Citing chapter and verse is much more helpful than simply citing the manual. Conrad Jay Blade 16:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• Readability has vastly improved in the article, and it is now basically coherent. However actual notability has still not been established. Usefulness of article and what it adds to Wikipedia I still don't see. Still a Delete. Improbcat 16:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• • • thanks for the positive response. Notability takes a lot of thought. There are lots of articles on wikipedia which are not about truly the most notable people or things. Recently to link my article to related individuals- a local author Dan Rodricks who has written about me in the Baltimore sun and even helped with and narated the channel 2 article about me has an article that is not in "trouble". Dan is a local writer who is employed by a newspaper and radio station. He has written this and that, columns and articles and did a television show, edited a book. Dan is known locally - most if not all of his contributions have been local but he in his field is not one of the most Nationally Significant Journalists of our time- far from it. Yet his article is there. He possesses a degree of notability but it is not defined at the national or international level. It seems it is defined within his own business. I guess-since the article is not in trouble that the level of significance within the field of journalism is significant enough.

Sort of like in football. Teams are just teams- ordinary teams. What makes a sports team important enough to have an article? How is notability awarded in the field of sports? It is awarded by the number of steps on the ladder (in pro football) one has accomplished out of the number possible. I would say that 50% is winning whatever it is that is beneath the play offs. (Notability need not be 100%-back to the congressman and president distinctions) It only need to be on or over the threshold. A first down is a first down on the line and does not have to be yards over the line. Notability need not be a superbowl winner or even a play off winner.Conrad Jay Blade 17:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The question it seems is that some think that art car artists (a relativly new art form) is not important or useful enough for inclusion generally.(what is useful? Certainly a student wanting to research Artcars would find the inclusion of a profile of an artists work and examples of it useful?) How would one determine if art car artists were worthy? In the art world the highest level of reflection of importance is the dedicated museum- The fine art museum, the modern art museum. For us in the art car world we have the Houston Art Car Museum and to a certain extent the American Visionary Art Museum. A few others. So I guess art car is a significant art category judged important. So I guess if you are at the top of the game being in a museum is the Superbowl. (my artwork was invited to be exhibited (outside of artscape) at specific events sponsored by AVAM and placed on display in the courtyard (fourth of july temporary exibit) I have been written about in their Tabloid exhibition guide for a major exhibit) But I get ahead of myself.

In the artcar world what are the steps to the top? (sort of like elections in politics- there is the nomination process, the primairies the general election the innaguaration.....) I have described what we have in our world to mark notability- making a car, being recognized and included in an exhibit with artcar criteria, winning a jurried artcar event, being selected and included in non trivial publications and video documentaries, being included in exhibits (invited by galleries etc...) Having artwork included in Galleries (in the artcar world the exhibition space is so small that this is truly an honor....)

As I have discussed the point is getting half way or more. So where am I in this? -made artcar- Yes (actually a high level of achievement here I have made the most in the area) -Admitted by application to artcar events with artcar criteria?- Yes many of them,local,regional,national -Winning a juried show?-Yes Orange Show not third,or second but first prize in the category that my car is. (remember one does not have to get the top prize of the entire event just a major one!) -Being selected and being exhibited for exhibition by a museum or Gallery and or being selected to be written about by the gallery- yes! I was requested to place my car on display within the property of the museum for a temporary exhibit and was referred to (validated) by inclusion in a tabloid guide published by the AVAM on the topic of artcars (refered to as "the" Baltimore Art Car Guy (a bit over the top as there were others but they knew there were others so I guess its their call... -Inclusion in non-trivial publications- Yes. A good number. Books, Videos etc....

Now where am I in relation to the first down. Well I think I am over the line which is all that matters. In terms of being the most notable I may be on the way- edging into the museum area which is perhaps the top but not there yet. So I guess I have won a few playoffs but am in line for the superbowl.

One of the questions to ask is what more can be done in the specific artcar field to reach the notable threshold-on or over the line? I think I have done most everyting and to the above add in being commissioned by non trivial organizations to create artworks, teach workshops, create cars with students in workshops and classes, I even was selected by a local college to offer a college course (did not run but they listed the class which is a judgement of my qualifiations to teach it...) There is a lot on the scale. Can't think of much more to add. Thanks for being patient with my evolving thought but this is a "trailblazing" sort of issue. At some point this discussion is necessary- other artcar artists are out there becoming notable every day and significant work should be recorded here at some point. Conrad Jay Blade 17:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• • • • • it is noted that after the re-write tags were added. Very vague reasons were given not indicating what needs to be fixed. It seems that some believe that Wikipedia bans articles written by the subject. It is very very clear that the words used are "strongly discouraged" if therefore a type of article is legal, not banned then it can exist and if it has problems they can be corrected. I will gladly make any corrections needed to fix this legal article. If the tags are placed in good faith the editor placing the tags should indicate with some degree of specificity what corrections should be made. They dont have to but if the goal is progress and improvement that would be most helpful. I don't mind the tags but I have a feeling that those adding them do not seek improvement of the article nor assistance. Again I am glad to have assistance and will do what I can to fix things. It is hard to improve things if all people are saying is that something (legal) should not exist. I invite others to fix the article- I have even done this on the page itself. It is a short article. Let us just fix it and move on or else leave it aloneConrad Jay Blade 18:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Nobody here has stated that autobiographical articles are banned - if they were your article would ALREADY be gone. Instead you get a 5-day review process that gives you a chance to convince people that your article is worthy of keeping. As you quoted about 5 times here - it is "strongly discouraged". Well guess what we're doing? We're discouraging you. STRONGLY. Just like the policy states. Plymouths 18:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

You can be discouraging but in good faith if an author is working on an article isn't it an obligation for the community to be helpful? You have discouraged, done now how does the community join in to help out as the author goes forward with something that is legal. Thanks for your interest. Now how can we work to fix the article.Conrad Jay Blade 19:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

from the Wikiopedia on good faith:

:To assume good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. In allowing anyone to edit, we must assume that most people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it. If this weren't true, a project like Wikipedia would be doomed from the beginning. When you can reasonably assume that a mistake someone made was a well-intentioned attempt to further the goals of the project, correct it without criticizing" Ok....I have been told that something is difficult, hard work essentially I have been " discouraged" it is abundantly clear that I can do what I am doing legally It is abundantly clear that I have heard the discouragement and am going to continue. your instruction then from Wikipedia is:"assume that most people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it" that person is me The only problem is therefore that you sense that there are mistakes Wikipidia then says: "correct it without criticizing" So....if you have a problem what is it specifically, since the article is legal the only thing it can have wrong is problems. Find the problem, find the solution and either fix it or tell me and I will fix it. At this point there is mostly criticizing which I don't don't mind but Wikipedia does not like it and tells you to "coorect". Thanks again for your interest. Trailblazing...never easy but if you use the rules as the baseline it can be accomplished-Conrad Jay Blade 19:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• I get the feeling from the wording "strongly discouraged" that it's only not banned because that would require actual identification (and that it can theoretically work). I've never heard of one that was actually brought up to standard and existed on its own with only the subject writing it. I think some editors might see it the same way as if someone ran by proclaiming that they were going to run from New York to California without taking a break. It's theoretically possible, but just about everyone is going to tell you not to try it, and they're not going to point out ways you could improve your running form, because that's not the main concern. Leebo⁸⁶ 19:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• • • • Good but no cigar! Let's see...."It has never been done before so we won't help you?" -(not to say that I have not had help!) Wikipedia says "correct it without criticizing". I am acting in good faith- trying to help it not hurt it. It is my point of view that finding a solution will assist more numbers of important and meaningful articles for inclusion added more efficiently. If information is real and documented who cares how it gets here. Why kill messengers if there are no lies, overstatements, or legal violations. Someday someone might Run from New York to California without taking a break but never if we dont let them try and assist them when we can-Conrad Jay Blade 20:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course, you can ask rhetorical questions about why the random person should help the cross-continental runner, but I'm trying to say it's not absurd for that person to react that way. Leebo⁸⁶ 21:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

yes! but Wikipedia is not interesting in your personal reaction. You may discourage but if the page is legal....you are pretty much commanded to "correct it without criticizing" These are two different things. Discourage and correct. The question is not if a legal artical should come or go but since it is legal- how can it be corrected? As in take this sentence and write it this way not that way. Punctuate or format like this. I try to make sure I address recommendations promptly as best as I can. I am always thankful for assistance which goes beyond criticism to correcting the legal page. Thanks again for everyones assistance. Trailblazing can be slow but it will work.Conrad Jay Blade 21:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• • • • Removed all trace of commentary. Transformed into material facts only chronology. Conrad Jay Blade 21:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• • • • • continued replacement of the quotefarm tag reflects at this point the presence of critique for critque's sake. Clearly removal of any of the four quotes on this page would not benefit the article but harm it. Quotes are the product of the independent parties-the authors. The length of the quote can not be adjusted by the author of this article as the quote is that of the independent party-length is out of the control of the author of the article (proper critique would simply helpfully find a way for the author to trim the quotes down limiting them while still making the point) . There is no better way of conveying history than through independent voices from reputable sources. Stating that a quote farm exists is not an attempt to help the page but to bring it down simply because something about the page content or author is disliked by the editor. Again it is so easy to make constructive criticizm that this editor has become suspect.Conrad Jay Blade 22:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• • • • • • • • • Good faith dictates that those who write the truth here do it for positive purposes. If the article is the "truth" verified and not disputable, sourced fully and completely and accurately. Who care who writes the truth? The only dispute here is if the truth has been written. The way to solve that is to cite and research sources and claims. I don't think it really matters who wrote the truth just so it is true. I have seen no one dispute the truth of the article nor its accuracy thus far.Conrad Jay Blade 00:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete - Since the subject of "truth" has been brought up by the author I felt obliged to put in a comment. WRT sources, I'm increasingly skepitical of the quality and objectivity of the sources listed and how they are being categorized by the author. In addition to originally overstating the extent of coverage in "Weird Maryland" it appears that the author's description of "In-depth Television Documentary" is overly generous as well. So far I have been unable to find any sort of documentation confirming that the author was the subject of an In-depth Television Documentary in either Monster Nation or VOA. In particular, Monster Nation as a series does not appear anywhere on the Discovery Channel website. I spent some time trying to find references to it and it appears to have been a mini-series (or possibly a series of specials from the Monster Garage series) in which each episode featured several notable vehicles of different types. Within a one hour show (with commercials) you're probably looking at 3-5 minutes per segment and that seems to be a far cry from an "In-depth Television Documentary". It is also worth pointing out the that link provided by the author wrt Monster Nation seems to be for a site that is asking people to volunteer to participate in the project which would seem to be a blatant form of self-promotion. Given that a television series should be the easiest thing to verify, this makes me seriously question the nature and quality of the other sources cited. This skepticism is further increased since the author's response to a question about his sources was "find a library and check the on line archives" which seems to make the task of verifying and working with his sources needlessly difficult (and it places the responsability for producing the sources on an editor's shoulders not the author's, contrary to Wikipedia's guidelines).

I think that the author is probably notable and/or noteworthy, but I have serious doubts if his notability meets the Wikipedia standards. In the last several days, I've made a concerted effort to find references to either Mr Bladey or his vehicles online and ALL of the sources I've come across seem to be either directly created by him, or purely promotional (and even references that he's included in the article use quotes from Mr Bladey where he claims to be a "Visionary Artist"). I also took a look at existing articles for automobile figures (e.g. Chip Foose), and did searches for them online and I found a great many sources and independent references to the people and/or their work. If Mr Bladey was as notable as he seems to believe, I would expect to see some chatter from discussion groups, forums, etc... indicating that people were talking about him or his work and that just doesn't seem to be the case. Given the amount of time he's spent defending his article I find it odd that he hasn't thought to produce some of the articles he's mentioned (not for inclusion, just so that other editors can look at them and perhaps find other information to include). It seems odd that there haven't been all that many references to factual details of the vehicles and/or their creation, maintenance, current status etc... Even after numerous edits, each auto's section seems more like a sales brochure than an encyclopedia entry. --Dragonvpm 07:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Summary of positions

Wading through all of this is difficult. If I followed everything correctly, here is a summary of the votes/positions everyone expressed:

• CfD nomination: WP:NOT#SOAPBOX Tagged by multiple authors for deletion, author keeps removing tags. User:Plymouths
• Delete. User:Auros
• Delete. User:Doczilla
• Delete. User: Plymouths
• Author response. Extensively defended the article. User:Cbladey
• Comments from User:Leebo86
• Weak delete. User:Montco
• Delete or userfication.[1] User:Improbcat (Figuring out who said that took some effort because of how the author of the article in question inserted replies directly into other people's remarks. Don't do that.)
• Still delete despite improvement. User:Improbcat.
• No vote from User:Uncle G, just a comment: "Here is not the place for primary sources to write primary source material. It is not a cheap shortcut around the process of getting primary source material published properly. Please look elsewhere."
• Reaffirmed delete after changes. User:Doczilla
• Said delete after changes, having previously said weak delete. User:Montco
• Delete. User:Dragonvpm

Doczilla 07:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

That is an accurate summation of my position. However unless it was done and reverted and I missed it, User:Cbladey didn't actually insert replies into my comments. I inserted comments from the version of this article that was up at the time to support my position. This is in no way a defense of User:Cbladey as he has repeatedly replied in other people's comments elsewhere, just a clarification of the facts in this one instance.Improbcat 15:10, 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.