Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Hendricks

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 of the debate was Keep Eluchil404 12:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tom Hendricks

Notability of subject is in question; history of editors shows it to be largely autobiographical/vanity. Note that User:Musea, the main editor, has attempted to work with process and improve the article. I have informed Musea that he can use this process to justify inclusion. — Estarriol ^talk 09:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Note: this AfD has been included on WikiProject Deletion sorting/Visual arts -- Tyrenius 00:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Currently considering this issue; my current thoughts suggest should possibly be merged into a new section on Underground Literary Alliance (although there's a question in my mind as to whether organisations that largely exist to promote their members are notable) or moved to userpage. Hard to establish notability since references are in the large part from a website written by the subject, or part of his alliance. — Estarriol ^talk 09:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I don't think merging with the ULA is correct. All of the events excluding the one fact that Hendricks is an officer of the ULA, is outside the ULA and almost all was done before the ULA was founded, and all was done exclusive and independent of the ULA. I hope no part of the protest is due to problems with the ULA. This is outside the issue in my opinion. I encourage all non factual info to be removed, instead of the entire article. I also note many references outside of the Musea.us or hunkasaurus.com website - neither of which were started by Hendricks. What is userpage and how would that apply? Musea 15:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• I can confirm that no part of the process is due to problems with the ULA; the main question is the notability of Tom Hendricks — is he notable enough to include in the encyclopedia? The page WP:BIO provides the most relevant information, although Wikiproject Music have notes on notability for musicians at Wikipedia:Notability (music). Personally, whilst I may find Tom's work laudable, I'm erring towards feeling that he's not notable enough for an encyclopedia article, although my uncertainty has driven me to open this process, in order to reach a consensus from fellow editors who are more familiar with the requirements. As for your other query, a userpage is explained in WP:USER — yours is User:Musea. — Estarriol ^talk 15:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I have been having some dialogue with Musea about this issue, and would encourage him to provide any verifiable references that exist for Hendricks's work—this could be newspaper or magazine mentions, books published by external sources, or even substantial web mentions. It would be helpful if there was a way of filtering this google search to just show his hits. There is an ongoing problem with the way more "alternative"/"underground" writers and artists may have a reputation in their own field, which can be difficult to verify in Wikipedia's terms. Check out WP:VERIFY Tyrenius 23:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I would argue that the ULA is a notable organization. They have acquired, as a group, real press, whatever their aims as an organization might be. However, I do not think they should be used as a source to verify information, since their entire reporting structure is based on superlative claims about their membership, usually directly in the words of the member on which they are reporting. At the talk page for Tom Hendricks, Tom/Musea mentions his own works, the ULA's writings, Artvilla, and the Texas Monthly June '06 issue as evidence of his notability. Artvilla is a fine publication, but I don't think a credit in Artvilla can be considered notable. I'll acquire the Texas Monthly article, though -- that's certainly legitimate reportage. JonathanPenton 01:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Whoops! Tom was published in Artella, not Artvilla. I'm not familiar with Artella. JonathanPenton 01:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Artella has recently sent word that they will reprint the 'end of art' article. See talk Tom Hendricks

One wider concern is this - if articles depend on mainstream sources for verification, they will eliminate all entries whose notable achievement is to oppose mainstream art and media. Mainstream music press will not do articles on anti-band music. Mainstream art press will not do articles on end of modern art protests. Mainstream publishers will not do articles on zines or zine movements that oppose them. I think valid indie sources - if there are enough to fit the wikipedia criteria - like ULA or Zine World, should be considered as well as more noted media such as Artella, Texas Monthly, David Darling website etc. Musea 02:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

That is the point I made above. I think if there were sufficient "non-mainstream" references, this would form a strong argument for inclusion. In this case, there don't seem to be many, however. Tyrenius 02:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd take Boog City's word over the New York Post's. "Mainstream" is not the issue. JonathanPenton 06:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that we're being very considerate here, asking and waiting for more substantiation of notability, but at the moment it's not forthcoming, which will lead to a delete under WP:VERIFY. Tyrenius 21:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess my point wasn't clear, probably because I nested my comment under your words instead of Tom's. I was trying to advocate the consideration of sources by their reputation for accuracy, not their readership. Unfortunately, the ULA web site has no reputation for accuracy, and I agree that the other references listed, which now seem to involve Texas Highways rather than the Texas Monthly, don't imply notability. I say Delete, for what it's worth. JonathanPenton 00:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I rewrote the article and removed all the POV/autobiographical/vanity/irrelevent stuff. Almost the entire article was written by Tom previously. Tom really doesn't formally meet the requirements for notability, but I think he should be included here. Primarily because he's been publishing a zine consistently for 12 years, but also just because I think there should be exceptions for eccetric outsider-artist-type people like him. But I do think he needs to stop editing his own article. If he has something he wants added or changed, he can put in on the talk page. Paul Slocum 22:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Well, that's a much better article, thanks Paul. Although notability is still the issue here — are you suggesting that someone who is an eccentric should be treated as if they are more notable than they are? I think making any exceptions to what are (once read) actually quite straightforward guidelines is dangerous. The drive behind WP:N seems to be concerned primarily with how many readers are likely to come to Wikipedia to look up the subject; I'm just not sure I see this happening. The very fact that Tom is the main editor on an article about himself just has vanity written all over it. Wikipedia is not here as a medium for self-promotion, surely? — Estarriol ^talk 22:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• I guess persistence is more what I'm referring to. The 14 years of the zine (I miscounted), that he constantly writes letters to local papers (which are occasionally published, and I can document later), that he's been playing his music at the Inwood for years, that he continues to post his Usenet art quizzes and articles week after week. None of it alone has reached formal notability requirements, but I feel that if you sum it all together, he's made enough contribution to warrant an article. I ain't gunna cry if you remove it, but personally my vote is to let it stay. Paul Slocum 23:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Would it be fair to infer that you're suggesting he's notable as a persistent eccentric? — Estarriol ^talk 11:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• haha, yeah pretty much. Thanks for the additional cleanup. I'm still learning the syntax for all the formatting details. Paul Slocum 17:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks, that's the leap of perspective I needed on this one. — Estarriol ^talk 20:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep OK, well done Paul Slocum. I agree that Tom has to stop editing it and should put info on the talk page for other editors to filter. I hope you'll be able to work on this article, as it's greatly improved. I think the problem is that there is a category that Wiki simply doesn't realise exists, namely the sort of underground/alternative art/literary pioneers, who are recognised within their field and who undoubtedly do have a reputation, which people knowledgeable in that field would recognise. I was certainly aware of ULA and would be glad of being able to find out more about them through Wiki. I would feel it a loss if such articles weren't able to be included. The thing is that everything has to be taken on a case by case basis, and I'm going with Paul Slocum's arguments as above. It doesnt't mean everyone that's ever published a magazine gets included, but someone that has this kind of consistency has developed a (cult) reputation. We have enough space on Wiki for all kinds of games info. Let's accommodate this as well. Tyrenius 10:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep There's been a good job done on this article, my only remaining reservation is whether the title is the correct title.--Richhoncho 18:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• What are your concerns in this area, Richhoncho? — Estarriol ^talk 20:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• It appears from what has been written that the only thing that Tom might be notable for is editing Musea - which might in itself be worthy of an article, but being a persistent eccentric shouldn't be considered notable in itself, unless of course, we are talking about a "notable persistent eccentric." However, I am happy to let the matter rest as is. Good work from yourself and Paul, you're both welcome to sort out anything I might have written. --Richhoncho 20:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• I personally think he's notable specifically for being a "persistent eccentric", which in my mind is in a large part Musea but also the music and stunts — it's really a label for a level of notability garnered by someone who has persistently, recognisably and (to some degree) famously maintainted an eccentric but consistent and public style over years. The notability of Musea is still an open question in my mind, as I haven't really studied that issue, but the consistent thread through Tom's endeavours is his eccentric style, and I do think that's notable in this case. Not sure I'm explaining myself very well here, sorry. — Estarriol ^talk 06:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• I know exactly what you mean and am happy to support the majority view which I have already done by voting for keep, there's no reason for me to change my mind again. --Richhoncho 08:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• (Weak) Keep This discussion has helped me to form an opinion, and that opinion is that Tom is notable enough as a persistent eccentric to have his own article. I will confess that I still feel it's borderline, and strongly feel that Tom should stay away from the article itself — particularly because Paul has done such a good job on rewriting the article and actually made Tom look better that way. Should Tom attempt to make it a vanity article (vanitise the article... do we have that verb?) in the future, it would be looking for trouble IMHO. — Estarriol ^talk 20:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• I agree. However my dealings with Musea/Tom in the past have been quite civilised and I think he would be happy to work with other editors and learn more about the Wiki ropes. I suspect also that in his extensive period of committed time to art/literary/music projects there's other stuff that would add to the article, but which he's simply not recalled. There may also be interesting material on the scene(s) he's involved with which could add to Wiki in other places. We have a huge amount of specialised knowledge on certain subjects, but not so many people filling out the contemporary arts coverage. It would be good to encourage further involvement. Tyrenius 21:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Oh, no disagreement there, and to clarify, I just don't think Tom should directly edit the article. I'm all for editors getting info from the subject of an article as long as they have no other connection — I'm personally working with a sportsman in just this way on his bio article right now. I'd just like to add that this has been an interesting process so far, I think one that validates our entire approach here. My personal thanks go out to all involved. — Estarriol ^talk 22:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• I'd like to thank you for starting the AfD in a way which has encouraged a genuine discussion process, which, to date, I think shows Wiki working at its best. I have only made up my mind through the course of this. Tyrenius 01:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Yeah, no problem with Tom contributing info, but I think it should be on the talk page. Paul Slocum 02:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• I've left a note on his user talk page to suggest this.--Tyrenius 02:27, 8 June 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.