|This page was nominated for deletion on June 5th, 2006. The result of the discussion was Keep.|
NPOV and notability concerns
I have flagged this article as needing attention regarding its lack of NPOV (Neutral Point of View) and the questionable notability of its subject. Please see the linked articles for further information.
Quick guidelines to improve article as regards NPOV:
- Reduce number of superlative claims in the article.
- Include criticism of the subject from 3rd parties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Estarriol (talk • contribs)
It's certainly a subject-created article, one that gives the subject credit for starting U.S. countercultural movements that were underway before he was born. I've never heard anyone cite Tom Hendricks, except for other members of the Underground Literary Alliance, which is a clique of artists dedicated to mutual self-promotion. JonathanPenton 00:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I welcome criticism form 3rd parties. As to 'reduce number of superlative claims. I'll double check. I have started counterculture movements that are different from those that went before. Can you specify? I think help with references is needed.
The art claim - see the Musea url, Musea issue, or this letter: Dear Tom,
Your article, "The Last Minute of Modern Art," was published in issue #7 v.1 of Artella e-zine. We are currently in the process of adding a new dimension to our Web site in the form of a daily newspaper and we're interested in reprinting your original Artella article in an edition of the online paper.
The music claim for post-bands music - see Musea.us. It is also spelled out on jackets of both the cd's 30 and Next
For box office concerts, see Texas Monthly Jan. 06
the writing claim - see Musea.us
the ULA officer see literaryrevolution.com
the UV paper see URL to daviddarling.info
Comment? Musea 03:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi Tom. I placed a comment on the RfD explaining my issues with notability. I will find that Texas Monthly article and get back to that page with an opinion. In any case, the first sentence quotes you about you, saying that you "started the revolution in the arts." This revolution is described in such a way to make it sound like you began the anti-corporate arts movement. In United States literature, this movement is generally thought to have been a very widespread and organic phenomenon brought by frustrations with post-War expansionism and conformity, brought to the public eye by Jack Kerouac, and most clearly represented by the publication of Allen Ginsberg's Howl, then chronicled in Donald Allen's New American Poetry 1945-1960. JonathanPenton 01:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I thought I'd add my two cents to this discussion, regarding not Musea but the Underground Literary Alliance, about which Mr. Penton seems to have misconceptions. We're not a clique-- we're open to any writer or artist who seriously wishes to join. this includes Mr. Penton. By the strict definition of "neutrality" used here, what is truly neutral? Does Wikipedia list conglomerate authors like John Updike? They're conglomerate products, hyped by corporate media as well as by billion-dollar English Departments. Where's the neutrality? They accept and push ONE kind of writer or artist, almost always certified by the academy, published by conglomerates. However, when one looks at the complete diversity of writers and writing out there, outside institutional settings, one realizes how narrow is the p-o-v, the artistic ideology, promoted by these writers. (Updike & Co.) The idea of the Internet should be to broaden this narrow range, Wikipedia part of that process. There's a wider range of writing expressed in the ULA than from any English Department (which almost by definition are about hierarchy and exclusivity; defing the "Canon" etc.). The ULA is a voluntary, unfunded collection of unaffiliated writers. Can status quo authors say the same? Don't they have a FINANCIAL interest in backing literature-as-is? Aren't Wikipedia entries regarding them also a way to promote them? Who's really neutral and who isn't? Take out Tom Hendricks, a notable figure on the underground arts scene for twenty years, and you must take out every corporate and academy author from this encyclopedia. Just my two cents-- an attempt to give some clarity to paranoia about the ULA. Thanks. -King Wenclas, ULA.
- Wikipedia is not a soapbox. This is an encyclopedia, it's purpose is to give accurate and neutral information regarding things that are sufficiently notable. Guidelines on notability of people are on WP:BIO, and this is the central concern about the viability of this article.
- Whilst I appreciate that there is a highly-entrenched global industry that promotes a general style of authorship, the style they are promoting is the most popular one. I know from family experience how difficult independent publishing is, but there have been very popular independently-published works. Those would be notable; with the best will in the world, relatively unpopular independently-published works are sill not notable for Wikipedia purposes. It is absolutely not the job of Wikipedia to right the imbalance you mention; however, I can well imagine Wikipedia-like publishing platforms for independent authors that might be supported by the parent foundation, or you could set up your own Wiki for such a purpose. Should you be interested in this approach, leave a message on my talk page and I'll do my best to point you in the right direction. In the meantime, thanks for registering and I hope you continue to contribute to the encyclopedia. — Estarriol talk 17:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I read the above post from "King Wenclas" who has also has an entry on Wikipedia as Karl Wenclas, another Underground Literary Alliance member. What is needed is independent, verifiable, non-partisan confirmation that these people warrant an article at Wikipedia. It's all becoming rather circular. --Richhoncho 18:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- In some cases, these things can be done. The ULA is not a homogenous organization, filled with people of equal notability. Both the ULA and King Wenclas have been reported on by other underground and independent presses, and there are notable members of the ULA. But, yes, someone has to actually do it, and there are going to be a very limited number of us writing small-press articles. I would think that, if King Wenclas is dissatisfied with the lack of entries for Frank Walsh and Joe Pachinko, some good NPOV entries would be very welcome. JonathanPenton 19:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
The Musea Zine Hall of Fame on zinewiki
The Zine Hall of Fame started by Tom Hendricks and Musea is now featured at http://zinewiki.com/index.php?title=Category:Musea_Zine_Hall_of_Fame Musea Musea 17:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
How do I reference url
How do I reference the url to the Musea Zine Hall of fame on zinewiki at http://zinewiki.com/index.php?title=Musea_Zine_Hall_of_Fame Musea 17:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Notability concerns again
When I encountered the article today, it seemed to me to clearly fail the WP notability guidelines. Then I noticed that it was nominated for deletion because of non-notability and that the decision was keep. There were two remarkable themes in comments by those who voted to keep: (1) They believed that article actually does fail the formal notability requirements, but (2) they would allow the article to remain if the subject Tom Hendricks would stop editing it. If the article does fail the notability requirements then it should be deleted, regardless of the quality of writing and other features. The fact it was created by Tom Hendricks and at first mainly edited by him makes it rather typical of what are referred to in WP as vanity articles. It appears that Tom Hendricks continues to edit the article as user:musea. I'd appreciate if someone could explain, in terms of WP policy, why we should keep the article. Nesbit 01:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- My argument was that the formal notability guidelines have to be flexible for outsider artists and people whose notability spans different areas. It's certainly been an issue for me in other areas where notability guidelines are vague, like art-related topics. I don't have time to argue this all over again, and I don't care about this article *that* much. I say "weak keep", so do what you want. Paul Slocum 21:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)