Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:An article about yourself is nothing to be proud of




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

The result of the discussion was  withdrawn. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

An article about yourself is nothing to be proud of
Does not seem appropriate even as an essay. It seems its only purpose is to unnecessarily scare people about their own bios; I think it risks only a drama-stirrer than anything else. I am fine with moving it to userspace, but I don't see it appropriate for WP space. Cycl o pia talk  23:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC) - I withdraw the nom, both for WP:SNOW and because the essay actually seems improving, both in title and in content. -- Cycl o pia talk  23:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - Policies and guidelines states that "Essays are the opinion or advice of an editor or group of editors, for which widespread consensus has not been established. They do not speak for the entire community and may be created and written without approval ." It also states that Essays that the author does not want others to edit, or that are found to outright contradict widespread consensus, belong in the user namespace.


 * As for this essay, it fits neither of these descriptions. 1.) It is one I do want others to edit. In fact, I was so happy to see a huge addition made to it less than 12 hours after its creation, that I awarded barnstar to that contributor. I am hoping to see more additions, and user space would be inappropriate for this. 2.) This does not contradict widespread consensus. It serves as a very good interpretation of parts of Neutral point of view, Biographies of living persons, and Conflict of interest, including Wikipedia's Law of Unintended Consequences. It is not at all rewrite of policy that contradicts existing policy, and does not scare people any more than the examples included here. Sebwite (talk) 00:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I see no particular harm in this. Moreover the nominator has not made a convincing case for deletion. Crafty (talk) 00:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. As the second contributor to that page, I obviously think it worthy of its place as an essay. Rather than "scare people", it can serve as a friendly warning, something that many newbies need. Currently it is possible to start an article without any form of truly noticeable warning. Any time someone starts an article in mainspace, they should be met with a couple click through "hoops" to jump through before they can start, IOW very clear warnings and advice about the possible consequences of their actions. Newbies need this. Recently an editor here tried to write a hagiographic article about his father. When unsavory details about his father's criminal past were included, he then regretted and went through three grueling AfDs to get it deleted. That should never have happened. It should have been prevented, and reading an essay like this might have helped to save everyone a lot of trouble and his family a lot of pain.


 * Not only does this essay cause no harm, it may even serve as a breeding ground for ideas that may enrich our policy at some point in time. It's a worthy attempt by Sebwite to distill some thoughts on the subject for the benefit of others. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * So we should create warnings and guidelines that make people avoid covering notable subjects only because it could harm them at some point? If an article is to be deleted or not, it will be on its own merits. COI notwithstanding, we should for sure encourage people to contribute, not scare them away. That's why this essay in main WP space is harmful. -- Cycl o pia  talk  00:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * This is an essay. It isn't in article space. Unnecessary problems should be avoided and prevented, and unwary editors deserve a warning. If something is truly notable, it will be created anyway at some point in time. That creation should be done with open eyes. While this isn't strictly about autobiographies, writing an article about oneself is always a bad idea, hence the title of the essay. It is fraught with so many COI and POV issues, as well as dangers, that it should be avoided. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I declare my interest and !vote to keep the essay. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and give the writer a barnstar! This essay is based in sound reasoning of our COI guidelines and hopefully it will be cited often.  Them  From  Space  06:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Essays are acceptable as a rule unless they bring disrepute on WP or are attack pieces. This esay should certainly be improved, as it may be bitey in some aspects, but that is the nature of essays. Collect (talk) 11:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It brings in disrespute WP, because it gives the impression from the title that your BLP is a disgrace by default. I am worried serioulsy by sentences like So beware, your boss, your boyfriend/girlfriend, or anyone else you are trying to impress may think one thing of you on one day, and you may lose all that respect by the next. which are just psychological terrorism. This essay worries me because it seems just a way to create new little Daniel Brandts which will scream to get their BLPs away, and I don't understand what good can come out of it. -- Cycl o pia talk  12:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, it serves as prior warning that deletion is not an option for people whose biographies are properly sourced, no matter how negative the article. Wikipedians who back down from pressure and threats aren't doing their duty. It actually brings more attention to a little understood (by newbies and creators of articles) aspect of the COI policy, the Law of Unintended Consequences. It should be required reading before starting an article. If you understood the waste of time for this community (through misuse of AfDs), and the personal problems created for editors and their families when biographies are started without understanding these matters, you wouldn't treat fair warning as a bad thing. Enormous pain and damage can occur from ill-conceived biographies. They should preferably only be written by third parties who discover a person's notability because they are truly notable, not because a friend or family member thinks they are more notable than they really are. Just study the case mentioned above to see the consequences. It's a horrifying example of what can happen when a newbie editor ignored multiple warnings of their COI and persisted in writing an article about their father. I fear for this editor if he persists in his attempts at self-promotion here by going public with his own autobiography. It is currently in his userspace, but when it goes public, others are bound to add negative details. Self-promotion is never a good thing. "Pride goes before a fall." -- Brangifer (talk) 18:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I know the case of Howard Press, but again, I see it as an example against this essay. It risks that people who could write reasonable articles about subjects they know won't do that, because they're scared of what could happen. WP:LUC already exists and this essay adds nothing but fearmongering to it. I don't understand how an essay that basically says to people "stay away from WP at all costs!" can be considered appropriate. -- Cycl o pia  talk  18:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * If this is a warning against anything, it is a warning flag regarding writing autobiographies, not against biographies. COI editing is usually a bad idea, and that's what this is about. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You may like my new addition: Some comforting thoughts -- Brangifer (talk) 20:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per Sebwite's reasoning. In no way is this essay a violation of WP:PG, as it does not express a fringe viewpoint and does not contradict widespread consensus. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - valid potentially useful essay, which seems to basically reflect existing opinion, even if an occasionally unsubtle way, and no really good reasons to delete it have yet been presented. John Carter (talk) 17:29, 5 December 2009 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.