Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin Michael Jenkins


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was keep. Buck  ets  ofg 15:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Justin Michael Jenkins

 * – (View AfD) (View log)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. –  Alf Photoman  16:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced, promotional artist biography - fails WP:BIO, WP:ATT. RJASE1 Talk  16:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. This reads like a resume. As per nom . Freshacconci 16:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 *  Delete  unless sources are added that prove critical acclaim and/or inclusion in a major art collection of his works Alf Photoman  17:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep, there has been work done on the article that show some degree of notability and as Michael144 is trying to work on it we should give him some more time Alf Photoman  16:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks Alf for the support - i am trying to make this work. Mike. --Michael144 10:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep First of all, i want this submission to meet all the standards of WIKIPEDIA and would like some help putting it together before we think about deleting it. I have many sources of the artist, particularly all the newspaper, magazine, and other publications that prove his worthiness for inclusion. Sponsoring a historic tournament in the Athletic Club in NYC and having your work (and the only work of art) present for the entire event is also noteworthy. Many of the worlds top chess grandmasters collect his chess works, and the chess collection is 10% of his output. He has done an anatomy collection, mind collection, spiritual, and abstract collection. he also has over 200 paintings, some appraised as high as $50,000. The artist has sold works for as high as $10,000 and i also have that proof. In my opinion, this artist, through his knowledge of many aspects of life as shown in his entire body of work and the level of quality, deserves to be recognized on WIKIPEDIA. I had one fellow, an Air Force officer, email me to have him deleted. If we have people who aren't even aware of art or the art world and then without any research into the person, file them for deletion, then this is a flawed system. Air Force pilots judging the level of quality of an artist? Im sure Da Vinci (and i'm not saying Justin is a Da Vinci, but if you study all he's done, he is similiar in a modern way), who wasnt even known during his time, would have loved to hear a military person tell him he shouldnt be included in an encyclopedia. I find Justin Michael Jenkins to be as worthy as most living artists right now and i can back it up with many more documents. Than k you for your time (: - Mike Retla. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Michael144 (talk • contribs) 23:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC).


 * User's only edits have been to this article and AfD. Tyrenius 02:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment The place where you can find the very stringent guidelines for the inclusion for artists is WP:BIO(<-Click there). You will notice that the threshold for artists is pretty high. If you can get it verifiable above that threshold I'll happily will say Keep Alf Photoman  00:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Hi Alf, i have placed many links to support the documentation already. What exactly do the wikipedians need to see. If i visited the artists page as it is now, it would seem to me he is definitely on the rise and worthy of inclusion. Just being Susan Polgar's full time artist/designer should be enough. That makes him already of a high credibility? Creating a biography/article for an artist is rather tough considering the bias and broad idea of what it takes to get into this encyclopedia. Thanks, Mike Retla
 * Comment Hi Tyrenius, would you help me get Justin on WIKIPEDIA? Between me and you i can send you documents to support why he should be on. I would even provide you with a phone number to reach me at to talk about his possible inclusion. Thanks for your time and keep up the good work - Mike Retla. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Michael144 (talk • contribs) 04:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC).
 * weak keep Still needs some improvements--there should be more selectivity--winning a 6th grade art prize isn't notable, and a description of developing style based on your own personal knowledge is OR--perhaps you can find one to cite. Each of the prizes and so on needs an exact citation, not just the name of the newspaper. This is within the range that can be made encyclopedic. And thanks for all the good GFDL you gave WP. DGG 05:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Hi DGG, i am trying to put together everything for his inclusion. How do i place links to a newspaper, magazine, and other article? Do i scan each one in and upload a photo? Yes, i agree the 6th grade thing is weak (LOL) but i am trying to make it interesting, like a timeline, but i will try to cut back and focus more on the critical and important material. I am not even close to being done yet. IN fact, it goes as far as 1989, and he was only 18 at the time. IF i make a list of what he ahs done can anyone help put this together. I am not the best writer of biographies for encyclopedias. Thanks for all your input and let me cross my fingers i can get him on here!! (: BTW - what is GFDL? - Thanks, Mike Retla. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Michael144 (talk • contribs) 05:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC).
 * GFDL is the GNU Free Documentation License, under which all Wikipedia content is licensed. In regard to this article, the subject seems to be borderline in terms of whether he merits an article. I recommend looking up other contemporary artists of comparable professional success who have Wikipedia articles, selecting the better articles among those, and then using those articles as a model for this one. Also, I would point out that all Wikipedia editors have an equal right to participate in this deletion discussion, whether they are artists, chess players, military personnel, or anything else. Ultimately, the decision to keep or delete is supposed to be made based on the quality of the arguments on each side, not on who is making those arguments or even how many there are on each side. --Metropolitan90 08:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Hi Metropolitan90. Thank you for your input. I'm not sure about we he meant by thanks for all the good imagery given to WP, doe's that mean hes going to use it irresponsibly? I would hope not and i had no choice to do that although i would much prefer to keep the images just for this site. In terms of getting Justin on this site, i have absolutely no problem hearing from anyone, but at least research someone before stating the person is unacceptable to the wikipedia. I have checked stats that go to the artists website and no one has even clicked any links to visit and learn more about the artist. In the end, through the quality of work and hundreds of sources online that show what Justin has accomplished, i feel i can get him accepted. Hopefully everyone will help me and teach about how to make this more acceptable. If you use other articles from other comparable artists as role models then perhaps we can use their format to make Justin's presentation as nicely as theirs. I have found many artists on here with less credentials and with very little information , yet they are on here? Does knowing someone on the inside help get on here? These are interesting questions and i intend on fighting every step of the way to get him accepted and using various examples. I hope others will help me or at least show some support (:. Thanks for your time, Mike Retla.
 * I don't think DGG meant to imply an intention to use the images "irresponsibly;" however, perhaps you should read the article on the GFDL closely, just so you know what rights you've given up. The images are now licensed under the GDFL, and are no longer your property, and you can't control how they'll be used.  Also, I just wanted to point out that the artist's website itself is not the kind of independent source we're looking for to establish notability, so gauging hits there probably won't give you an accurate idea of what research people might be doing.  —Carolfrog 00:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Hi Everyone. Added references to some articles although he has many more that haven't been scanned. I need some serious help with the layouts like how to place pictures on the right side neatly as opposed to stacking. I am trying to bring more details into the article, but need more feedback (: Thanks, Mike Retla. --Michael144 14:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Carolfrog, i do not wish to let these images be used by anyone other than for this article. How do i go about doing that? Any image by an artist is still copyrighted under his name and he retains the rights for at least 100 years after its creation based on the visual arts copyright laws. I find WIKIPEDIA to not be very user friendly (: Could someone tell me how to make these images strictly for use on the article bio page? Thanks, Mike Retla --Michael144 02:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * As they are uploaded as fair use, they can only be used in an article about them or the artist. Tyrenius 04:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete per speedy delete criterion G11:
 * Blatant advertising. Pages which exclusively promote a company, product, group, service, or person and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic.

This is blatant advertising, in as much as it exclusively promotes a person. That in itself is not a reason to delete. The reason to delete is that it exclusively promotes a person and needs to be fundamentally rewritten. It is full of original research, POV and peacock terms, is not properly referenced. I am not attacking the author for this, as a new editor will not know all these things. It takes editorial experience to write such an article to the required standard. However, the edit box for a new article states:
 * Do not write articles about yourself, your company, or your best friend. ... Wikipedia is not an advertising service. Promotional articles about yourself, your friends, your company or products, or articles created as part of a marketing or promotional campaign, will be deleted in accordance with our deletion policies. For more information, see Spam. Articles that do not cite reliable published sources are likely to be deleted. ... Encyclopedic content must be attributable to a reliable source.

The new editor who chooses to ignore this, does so at their own risk. New editors are invited to contribute to wikipedia, but not to write (self-)promotional articles. For an article like this to be retained, it requires a substantial amount of work to be done on it by an experienced editor &mdash; which is not a demand that the original article editor is entitled to make. We are seeing far too many new articles that fall into this category. I think this subject may meet the notability criteria, so that if any editor choose to do the work necessary to create an acceptable text, I will look again. Otherwise, I suggest to Michael144 that he gets proper experience on wikipedia as an editor by helping with a range of articles and working with established users. He may then be in a position to contribute an acceptable article on Justin Michael Jenkins. The only reason I have not speedy deleted this is out of respect for the editors who have already contributed to this AfD, which I think should be allowed to make the decision. Tyrenius 04:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Tyrenius, after reviewing dozens of artists biographies on wikipedia, i have begun to mold the article in a similiar fashion as theirs. I am not trying to blatantly promote him, just give him credit in a nice article. By the way, we are not friends, but we have worked together and i feel he should be given a chance to be on wikipedia. I would also like to point out that any article or biography on wikipedia is a form of promotion to some degree. You are "promoting" the person by given them a proper article discussing what they have accomplished. I have also began to change the internal links to the wikipedia areas rather than link outside the artivle (my mistake at first - i thought they wanted external links within the article). In terms of reliable sources, linking to direct newspaper articles and other resources that further confirm my points is the wrong way? I am a bit surprised you think this is a self promotional article? I thought writinga biography about an artist was done along these lines after reviewing other artists pages. Also, does wikipedia have editors you can hire to write up biographies and articles? - I would hire someone to help me make this acceptable Thanks, Mike Retla --Michael144 07:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Paid edits are forbidden. Wiki is created by volunteers. Please study the policies and guidelines as in the welcome message on your talk page, also the use of references, for which a guide has been provided. You might like to look at Featured articles for the best articles, as well as WP:ATT, WP:NPOV and WP:PEACOCK. I don't wish to be discouraging, but there are specialist skills that need to be mastered to write within wiki guidelines, so I recommend gaining a much wider experience first of all. Tyrenius 02:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Tyrenius, is this person notable enough or not? In terms of writing the article, i do not want to spend countless hours workng on this if you and the other administrators already have your minds made up as to who gets published or if Justin is acceptable. In terms of the WIKIPEDIA standards, i am learning and do not find this write up that bad as compared to others i have read and researched on here for artists. So perhaps your bias? Thanks, Mike --Michael144 10:14, 16 March 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.