User talk:Workipaidia

"Fun"
Hi, Workipaidia. I am assuming you're the same editor who sought advice at WP:EAR about the removal of the person "Fun" from the List of legally mononymous people, for the reason that "Fun" does not appear to be notable. I observed there that the best thing to do would be to create an article about the person and see if it passed the notability test. I see you're working on a draft, and that's a good idea - but until you've finished it, please don't add links to it to other articles. To be honest the notability of this person seems pretty iffy to me and - while I may be wrong - my best guess at this point is that the article would probably fail the general notability guideline. But anyhow, draft it up, and perhaps run it through WP:Articles for creation and see what people think. Good luck, and let me know if you have any more questions! JohnInDC (talk) 23:45, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your comments. He's a close personal friend of mine and I am the same person who you wrote to. I read in the examples and instructions that sometimes people fail the notability standard but then can later pass the requirements. If he doesn't pass muster, I'm sure he eventually will. I am not trying to go against the Wikipedia community with my entries. Far be it from that. Any errors I make since I'm still learning the process, I hope will be corrected. I'm sure I've made a few mistakes so far.


 * I find the concept of Wikipedia notably far more stringent than the defined concept in the Oxford English Dictionary. I am trying to see if he is considered, especially because of the other absurd people mentioned in the list of legally mononymous people like Dotcomguy, who I think is completely unnotable. His name was a one-time stunt, he is still named Mitch Maddox too. But there's a Wikipedia page about him that explains his fame which I think falls under the "by dint of" clause.


 * Currently, there are several mononymic people who are going to great lengths to stand up for the rights of everyone who has a complicated or simplified name. Sai is the name of a person who has been legally working to fix the credit bureau system. Fun is trying to get the Social Security Administration to do the same. These are not small matters and they affect a great deal of Americans. But what notoriety is there for that? Wikipedia seems to support the one-time stunt that involves essentially an unknown Burger King ad.


 * I still believe that his being known across the country by 1/350th of all Americans, his art having appeared in two museums, his 15 minutes of fame from being put on the front page of the largest newspaper in Arizona which was reposted over two dozen sites including Fark and got him interviews on TV as well as on local & National talk radio, plus his being published in two Nationally recognized books, one being a textbook used for Freshman English courses at University level, and his few appearances in film and TV, constitute notability. I just don't know how to reference all of these things for him. Not much of it is listed on the Internet, a place that isn't the end all be all of what's true and factual. Another similar situation is happening to his Aunt Veronica who has run a micronation called Ruritania since the 1960's. It was based on 'The Prisoner of Zenda' a book from whose publishers have given her permission to do so. She's hosting MicroCon 2017 in Atlanta, but Wikipedia refuses to allow her a page for her micronation as well. It's because of these things I am not overly optimistic about this, but I am willing to try regardless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Workipaidia (talk • contribs)


 * Well, Wikipedia "notability" is a slightly different thing than the word in the colloquial sense. Go take a look at WP:GNG (the general notability guideline) for a sense of what it amounts to.  What you're really going to need to find, finally, is coverage of Fun in a variety of independent, reliable third party sources.  To get an idea of what those might be, go see WP:Reliable.  Sources don't need to be on the internet, but they do need to exist.  Throughout all this it's important to bear in mind that Wikipedia isn't a vehicle for promotion, or for popularizing things that individual editors find interesting - it may help to regard Wikipedia as a place where material that is already written about the various topics here is summarized and pulled together in a way that is useful to the reader.  As for Dotcom - eh.  I sort of agree with you, and it's possible that the article should just be jettisoned.  But even if that's true, the fact that "other stuff exists" on the encyclopedia is not generally regarded as a good reason to waive policies for something new.  JohnInDC (talk) 12:19, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

After reading all the information listed, I feel like it is better for me to remove the listings for Fun at this time. I was not intending to use Wikipedia as a vehicle for his promotion, but until his notability becomes more public, that is all it will appear to be. I also feel like being a personal friend of his will be considered inappropriate for my writing of any drafts or inclusion as well. I am going to remove the postings and see if he ends up being included on his own merits by a total stranger. That way there will be no doubts about any of it. I am also not a programmer, so draft writing is not my specialty. Once again, I appreciate your guidance in this matter. I also hope that in the future, someone will look into Dotcomguy and a few others on the list of legally mononymous people who should not be included according to Wikipedia's terms of use. Especially the individuals who only had a mononym for a short while then reverted to their original names. I used to think this was a pop culture reference guide, but now I look at it as an online encyclopedia, which is more appropriate and I believe what the creators intended it to be. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Workipaidia (talk • contribs)


 * Not trying to offend anyone, but how does Wikipedia review Dotcomguy for removal? He isn't notable. He shouldn't be on the list of legally mononymous people. He shouldn't have his own page. By dint of fame is not enough to be listed in an online encyclopedia. But that is what defines him. Please let me know. Thank you  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Workipaidia (talk • contribs)


 * I have been meaning to respond to your earlier note to say that I appreciate your taking the time to review the various pages I sent you to and for absorbing what was in them. I was also going to add that, perhaps you could take a look around at other topics that may interest you to see if articles can be improved in one way or another - heck, start with small steps like fixing typos.  If you start out with small steps and learn as you go, you can become really helpful, and maybe have fun in the process.  Now as for Dotcomguy - probably the place to see about deleting the article would be at WP:Articles for Deletion.  If you go to that page there are (kind of complicated) instructions on how to get started.  But maybe look around the web a bit before you do.  I share your general sense about Dotcomguy - that he was a flash in the pan, a one-event guy who doesn't seem up to the General Notability Guideline.  But a Google search turned up a surprising number of articles about him - stale, mostly, but still out there.  I didn't look much beyond that so I don't have a final opinion, but maybe as an exercise you can look to see how thoroughly he has been covered, and then compare it to WP:GNG to see how he stacks up.  Helpful?  (Oh, also please sign your comments by adding four tildes at the end.  Thanks.)  JohnInDC (talk) 11:53, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * As I think of it, it would really help you to read a dozen or so biographical entries on that page to gain a sense for why articles get deleted - or, indeed, why they don't! That way if you decide to go forward with a nomination, you'll know how it should look and what kinds of things you should say.  JohnInDC (talk) 12:13, 18 October 2016 (UTC)