Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/POnju
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Moved here from the main page, as it is without merit in its claims and contained a personal attack. Unsuitable for inclusion in an AFD discussion.
Note that a large part of the unencyclopedic, unverifiable cruft within this article is due to User:Xuanwu and his 90+ edits to this article. Quite a few of these edits involve inserting obvious vanity information about himself and his non-notable webcomic into the article. For example, see: [1],[2],[3],[4],[5],[6],[7],[8],[9], [10],and [11]. (Personal attack removed) See, for example, this edit which he summarises as "rv illegal edits by pOnju - violates WP:AUTO" [12]. Also, remember that we can't write or keep encyclopedia articles based on "potential future [reference] articles" as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Anyone who thinks this article can somehow be cleaned up is free to clean it up as the article is not protected from editing. -- Dragonfiend 06:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
My reply:
The article was "pOnju" not "Xuanwu," so WP:AUTO doesn't apply to my edits of this article. Also note that at least two of your examples include me simply restoring an entry someone else made that happened to mention me - hardly vanity. Also, many of what you describe as "POV versions" were hashed out between multiple editors both on and off Wiki, meaning that those entries had editorial consensus. Your description of them as "trivial" is inaccurate, as a forum's history and community are elements that contribute to its notability. An article about an internet forum needs to demonstrate how that forum is different from all the other forums out there (same way a biography needs to demonstrate how a person stands apart from the norm as part of justifying the importance of the subject's inclusion). I suggest you re-read WP:BIO. And the edit that I reverted when I said "rv illegal edits by pOnju - violates WP:AUTO" was a very obvious violation of WP:AUTO, not to mention it inserted an unverfiable personal attack against me, two reasons that make the reversion perfectly valid. I'm not sure why you're trying to imply said reversions were somehow out of place. I've removed your attack against me, since your personal POV about how I've applied Wiki policies is irrelevant to the discussion here and is yet another example of a WP:AGF and WP:CIV violation on your part. The article before pOnju's edits represented the version that has arisen from the consensus of several different editors working from several different perspectives; while that version is not a finished piece, I do not regret submitting information to be edited and worked on by my fellow editors, because I know my contributions helped improve the quality of the article. Xuanwu 04:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Xuanwu 18:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
- Note that WP:AUTO begins "Avoid writing or editing articles about yourself ..." It doesn't matter if the article is actually named for yourself or not; writing about yourself is a bad idea. So, for example, repeatedly inserting information about yourself or your webcomic into articles like this one, Neon Genesis Evangelion, Webcomic, Webcomic again, WP:WEB, Voltron, and others is a bad idea. It's an especially bad idea when the information is unverifiable through reliable sources. I'm not sure what in my previous comment made you feel personally attacked, but that was not my intent and I apologize for any sore feelings it may have caused. -- Dragonfiend 21:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
- The way you phrased it made it looked like an attempt to discredit me as an editor. I tend to get a bit tee-ed off when someone attempts that. If that wasn't what you were going for, I'll chalk it up to a misunderstanding caused by your writing style. Try making your posts more conversational; that might help reduce the combative nature of your usual writing tone.
- One of the key differences between Henry (pOnju) and myself on this matter is that in this case the article is about pOnju as a person and about the site he started and maintains. In OO's case, I am neither the creator (Emi and Tanzy get credit for that), nor am I the one in charge of the site (Emi retains primary control). Also, the main reason to avoid writing about yourself is to avoid the insertion of POV. I think even WP:AUTO would allow a person to correct their own birthdate or some other matter of record. In my case, I tended to insert factual statements, such as character descriptions or saying "this show is referenced in this comic." If a show really is referenced in a comic, then that statement isn't POV and does no harm by being included. I avoided saying things like "OO is the best," which is the sort of POV insertion that WP:AUTO is meant to control.
- In the case of the pOnju article (which is more relevant to the case at hand), I mainly added accounts of forum history and events, which were then edited by other editors to remove POV via consensus (this harkens back to the psychology statement that everything we write is fundamentally subjective, but that subjectivity can be reduced through group effort). For example, when I listed the founding editors of the Hamthology, I mentioned three people including myself, but avoided any sort of value judgment like "Xuanwu is the leader" or "Xuanwu is the one really in charge." In pOnju's case, he repeatedly inserted his own POV on forum history (such as trying to rewrite some events to make himself look better, ala the Congressmen who had their staff edit their Wiki articles) and made personal attacks. Had he just inserted facts (like adding the bit about the Nyu comic, which I left in since that was factual and not POV), I wouldn't have accused him of breaking WP:AUTO. The point is moot, now. Do you understand the distinction I make? I think you have a much narrower interpretation of the guidelines than I do, which is why we butt heads so much. Xuanwu 16:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not at all interested in getting into the minutiae of your non-notable webcomic or your non-notable message board activities. I've already pointed out several times my belief (backed up by our policies and guidelines and community consensus) that it's a really bad idea to spam wikipedia articles with original research into unverifiable trivia about how you made a webcomic about your favorite TV show or got into an argument on a message board. That these types of vanity edits end up getting deleted ought to help you understand that your point of view about the importance of the things you post on the internet may be, in comparison to the rest of the community, over inflated. I don't think I have anything more to add to this conversation about this deleted content. -- Dragonfiend 19:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
