Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jimmy Henchman

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.

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats

)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Searching for anything on this person simply shows that he is a lowlife, violent, minor criminal with delusions of grandeur. The article has many citations, all in reliable sources. I added one myself. But he is 'notable' for simply being a petty criminal. One Incident does not confer notability. I have searched and found nothing about his business life, let alone anything that makes him notable. He is associated with musicians stated to be notable, but notability is not inherited. I once met a celebrity, but notable I am not. Nor is he. Fails

• I too am struggling to see how he would be eligible for inclusion, based on the available mentions in the sources. It's nothing but a
  GNG-thing, baaaby. pablo 13:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• How should the eventual closer of this discussion interpret your thoughts, please. I feel you are agreeing with and arguing for delete, but don't want to put words into your mouth Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:42, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It isn't a binary choice though Tim, as you know. And these discussions do go on for a week or so. I'll think some more on it; Itemirus has a suggestion below, I'm thinking a straight redirect might be better as a few mentions and a lot of hearsay and rumour is admittedly a poor basis to construct a BLP. pablo 19:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I would not oppose either a well performed simple merge, or a straight redirect. The area is BLP minefield. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into
  Czar Entertainment - some notability can indeed be established. --Itemirus (talk) 17:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Any merge would require extreme care in order to keep undue weight on the criminal activity of Henchman/Rosemond clear of the article. As the Henchman article stands all I can see that could go in is a sentence to state his CEOship (I have not done more than skimmed the Czar article to see that it exists in a decent state, it may be mentioned) and a sentence to state his criminality as a qualifier of the man. I don't oppose merge as an outcome, I simply see it as difficult to achieve well. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:02, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Well merging is better than deleting; a phrase like "he was the CEO of Czar Entertainment, is a convicted drug trafficker and has been involved in the murder of..." will do. I understand your rationale, one incident does not confer notability, but then what should we do of articles like this? Jimmy Henchman appears to be more notable than this guy --Itemirus (talk) 19:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The article you cite has, in my view, no place here either. There is a strong temptation to propose it goes, too. I will resist that for the moment, only because it seems like a suggestion, and I am trying not to be suggestible, but don't let me stop anyone else. I know you are not arguing
  WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, but it most assuredly does exist! I wonder about many articles on WIkipedia. But we are, for the present, considering this small time crook. $2.8m as a drugs haul is pretty small beer. I contend that he is a well reported minor crook. The other chap is probably a gullible fool. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Henchman's notability is established on 5 counts enumerated below (I've summarized them here and provided the article with references below.) These are correlated with the sheer volume of newspaper articles on the subject. (Please note that a number of Wikipedians have contributed to this article since June 1 or so with little disagreement until August 20 or 21 .

1. In the early 1990s, Rosemond’s Henchman Productions produced hits for such stars as Salt N Pepa. In the late 90s, he changed the name of his company to Czar Entertainment, where he ruled as the titular head of hip-hop’s anti-snitch movement representing many gangsta rap stars, including Game, Shyne, Rick Ross and Gucci Mane, as well as ex-heavyweight champion Mike Tyson.

2. Although he was titular head of raps anti-snitch movement 2010, a NY daily news article by Alison Gendar shocked the hip hop world when it revealed that Henchman, head of the hip hop anti-snitch movement, was himself a federal informant (see current article with references below).

3. Henchman is the subject of the music world's biggest drug bust: On June 5, 2012, he was convicted of drug trafficking, obstruction of justice, firearms violations and other financial crimes associated with his being the head of a multi-million dollar transnational cocaine selling organization.[2].

4. Murder indictment: In February 2012, Henchman was arrested for the murder-for-hire of Lodi Mack, an associate of rapper 50 Cent. He is behind bars, awaiting sentence on 13 counts of crack slinging, money laundering and obstruction of justice. He will soon face trial for conspiracy to commit murder references below.

5.Assault at the Quad: Henchman was widely believed to be the mastermind behind the attack at the Quad, both by Tupac himself and by Pulitzer-prinze winning journalist Chuck Philips. Although Philips 2008 controversial article (Court case exhibit: USA vs James Rosemond Case # 1:11-Cr-00424 5/14/2012 Document # 100, exhibit 1) was retracted in 2008 when Henchman threatened the LA Times with a lawsuit (because they and Philips had mistakenly included court-filed documents 302s which turned out to be forged) It was thought to be vindicated when Dexter Isaac confessed to attacking Tupac on Henchman's orders. About a year later, a prosecutor revealed at trial that Henchman confessed to involvement in the attack in one of 9 Queen for a day proffer sessions. In this connection, Jimmy Henchman was mentioned by name in a famous song called against all odds. He rapped ". Jimmy Henchman,...[You] Set me up, wet me up,...stuck me up....Heard the guns bust but you tricks never shut me up."

—Tupac Shakur, Against All Odds" Please note that all those who have written the original article as well as hip hop fans across the world would object to such a deletion.

Here is the article as it stands on September 4th I think is a fair representation of the situation and also includes the references. Scholarlyarticles (talk) 01:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note I have not deleted the pasted text from the original article in my edit just now. Instead I have used the permalink to what I honestly believe to be the version pasted in, and given my rationale for doing this on the talk page here. I wanted to be sure the swathe of text did not detract form the arguments given. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment your item (1) above is approriate to the corporation, not the man, and should be discounted in this discussion. Adding the information to the corporation's article is a useful action. (2) may have merit, but requires explanation, not only here, but citation in the article. (3) is part of the
  WP:BLP1E issues I see about the article as a whole. "Street values" of drugs are figures that tend to be massaged by enforcement agencies to look enormous. $2.8m is not as large as it might appear to the reader of media. (4) is an area where one must be very careful. My view is that he may become notable on conviction, moving us away form BLP!E, but that he is currently innocent until proven guilty. This is congruent with Wikipedia's policies. (5) is complex, too. My view is that wide belief is not an appropriate thing to have in an article. Such things are in danger of being considered libels and our general policy is immediate removal to remove the danger. Finally, though I appreciate your point about hip hop fans and others who have contributed to the article, we may not second guess their opinions. Wikipedia works by participation. They are all welcome to place their own opinions here, in this discussion, but we may not take your word for those opinions. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

@Fiddle Faddle. I think perhaps you misunderstand - He WAS proven guilty. He was convicted on 13 counts including drug trafficking, obstruction of justice and other related counts. He is in prison facing life on those charges alone. He is also going to be tried for the murder of Lodi Mack as well. Finally, his involvement in the attack at the Quad is legendary and the corroborative confession by Issac and the June revelation of prosecutors is of great interest and has been written about widely. The ambush at the Quad was classified as a robbery and the statute of limitations has passed and no one will be tried for that. I added the articles corroborating the theory as they appeared in late June of this year. Henchman's involvement was mentioned in Tupac's famous rap "Against all Odds." Therefore it is of interest to rap fans. Failure to include it in any article about Henchman would be a serious omission. I'm not sure this is the right place to discuss this but I think it would be of great help if those editing the article on Jimmy Henchman or on anyone for that matter, actually read all the source materials before they do so. In this case, this would include the PACER citation, the AHH cite, the dxhiphop.com cites, the VV, the HuffPo articles, Jennifer Evans article for KTLA..com as well as the dxhiphop articles and the AP cites. This would seem to give one more authority in the matter than simply googling Jimmy Henchman and trying to get an impression of his importance. A depth of understanding about the content area in which one is editing seems critical, unless it's a matter of grammar or style. A lot of people worked on this. Too many articles besides this were obliterated on that fateful August 20-21 spree. Many individuals besides me whose work had stood for months and, in some cases, years had their work erased simply because I had worked on the article. In many instances, I cannot recover their work because it had the stamp of their expertise. This is unfortunate. I don't think the problem should be compounded by preventing Wikipedians from repairing their little contributions. Scholarlyarticles (talk) 16:50, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The issue is not whether the gentleman is guilty. He is guilty. With the point where he is currently inocent, you stated He will soon face trial for conspiracy to commit murder references below. That is the area of concern. The issue is whether he is notable, sufficiently notable, to have an article here. I believe he is not. You believe he is. Each of those beliefs are fine, and we are submitting to consensus to find out if one or the other of us is correct. With regard to other editors, each has the same rights as any other editor here. They can and should contribute to discussions such as this one. I believe I have notified in the correct neutral manner each significant editor to this article. If I have missed any out please use the appropriate template on their talk pages, but absolutely do not canvass their !vote one way or the other. If any articles have been deleted 'because you worked on them' that is likely to be grossly unfair, and a Deletion Review can and should be requested by you or by any other editor. I am afraid no-one has to show any expertise in any topic here before editing an article. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:28, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I'm always curious as to why we are so paranoid when it comes to BLPs of notorious persons. This is clearly not a BLP1E, there are multiple instances of criminality, it is the largest case of it's type in the music industry, and relates to a number of other articles. While being cautious with BLPs is wise, being overly so borders on censorship and isn't something I will support, and forces me to jump in here. The sources are rock solid and the individual passes GNG. Anything else is a matter of editing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - He's mentioned and interviewed in several MTV interviews and allegedly responsible for an attack on TuPac. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronjohn (talk • contribs)

• As nominator I have moved my position. While I am not currently considering withdrawing the nomination, I now wish to be classed as Neutral. I may yet be persuaded to move from this neutral position. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I think one source of confusion is that FF misunderstands the import of the drug bust. I tried to determine how Fiddle Faddle arrived at the of 2.8 million dollar number he mentioned supra. I think he is perhaps confusing the amount confiscated at the bust as reported by the NY times with the amount Henchman was convicted of trafficking (as little as 10 million since 2007 according to the NY Times, to much more than that per year according to other sources). These had nothing to do with his conviction on associated firearms charges and obstruction charges. Because there still is some confusion about what Jimmy Henchman is notable for, I have included 2 references from God's own newspaper - The New York Times - with direct quotes from the paper not only as to his notoriety but as to the source of his main interest to the public. I've added the references in this short paragraph but I refer all to the Jimmy Henchman article as it stands today on September 8th at 447 Eastern time.. I'll give a couple key quotes here from the New York Times I've included. He is a legend in the hip hip world, having been referred to by the New York Times as "a prince at the royal court, whose ties to rap music’s biggest stars were known far and wide." [3]. b.) But it was not his role as a federal informant or even his drug conviction that made him notorious in the rap world, but his long rumored involvement in the attack that set off the east coast West Coast rap wars [10]. As the New York Times said "For years, he has denied allegations that he was involved in a feud that led to the murders of the rappers Tupac Shakur and Christopher Wallace, known as Biggie Smalls."[10] Two new references are: Schwartz, Michael (June 5, 2012). "Rap Music Figure Convicted of Running Multimillion-Dollar Cocaine Ring". New York Times. Retrieved 8 September 2012. Nate, Schweeber (May 14, 2012). "Drug Trial Starts for Figure Prominent in Rap World". The New York Times. Retrieved 8 September 2012. SCHWEBER, Nate (May 13 2012). "Drug Trial Starts for Figure Prominent in Rap World". The New York Times. Retrieved 8 September 2012. By the way, I have a feeling a lot more people will be looking for this article this year when Henchman is sentenced for the drug charges and the trial begins for his alleged murder of Lodi Mack. Scholarlyarticles (talk) 21:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.