User:Vslashg/Veloso

For some time, I've felt I needed to nominate an article about myself for AfD. It feels odd doing so, so I have written this short essay to describe my motivations.

I spend most of my Wikipedia time patrolling new pages and newbie edits, and have tagged more than my share of vanity pages. Sometimes when I mark an article about a website which I feel deserves eyeballs, or about project that involves or interests friends of mine, I start feeling guilty about the article Veloso (artist).

I've never edited the article about myself (Veloso (artist)) or my flash cartoon (Irrational Exuberance (Animutation)). Even before I had read WP:AB, it felt wrong for me to do so.

The article and talk page on Irrational Exuberance make guesses about the ideas and motivations behind the cartoon. The article text itself has two clearly stated guesses ("The piece implies" and "This may possibly be"). As the creator, I of course know the truth about my motives, and it may even be good for me to set the record straight, but unfortunately, Wikipedia is not the place for this. As much as I'd like to, I'm not going to swoop down into the article and weigh in.

I'm not saying the piece on Irrational Exuberance deserves to be removed. Quite the contrary. It's verifiable &mdash; an Austin Chronicle article and a bachelor's thesis investigate it &mdash; and it might be an important example of a notable art form. And certainly an encyclopedia entry on a cartoon (or film or song or other work) should mention major themes, even if the author doesn't have access to the artist's line of thought. My (admittedly potentially biased) gut feeling is that Irrational Exuberance (Animutation) meets the standards for Wikipedia inclusion.

However, the page Veloso (artist) has bothered me ever since I started patrolling and marking vanity pages. The page is out of date: I no longer live in Austin, TX. WP:AB says I can update the article, but I'm not sure what the point is: if I need to edit the article myself to make it correct, the subject matter is no longer verifiable. The article's a stub, and it seems destined to remain one. Unless my work becomes famous for another fifteen minutes, there may never be another verifiable article written on the subject again.

I don't nominate the article about myself lightly. I've been debating doing so for some time. I once marked it as, hoping that nobody would object, but someone did, and in the process did a nice job of making Veloso a disambiguation page. I may even be overcompensating here &mdash; perhaps the article does live up to notability guidelines, and my feelings are biased in the other direction. But I believe I have marked for deletion many articles about people just as deserving of an article as I am.

Though I did not create or edit the Veloso article, I am flattered that people believe I am notable subject &mdash; that they have created, edited, and defended the article about me. I hope my nominating the article for AfD is not taken as a dismissal of them; I am genuinely pleased when people enjoy my work, and I sincerely thank everyone who wants to spread the word about me.

But I'm conflicted. I don't think this article belongs, and it feels very strange, being a deletionist who has a questionable biography entry. I feel like I need community concensus here, and AfD is the forum for that. I'll respect whatever decision arises from the process.