Talk:Chen Chen (poet)

Deletion

I vote for deletion. There's no inherent reason why Chen Chen should linked to Chen Cheng, which are pronounced quite distinctly in Chinese....--71.111.229.19 (talk) 10:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Twitter source

Per WP:ABOUTSELF, even self-published material, including a subject's Facebook and Twitter accounts, may be used as sources in articles about themselves: "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they are established experts in the field." Skyerise (talk) 12:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

To clarify for editors TL;DR behavior, this exception is intended specifically for the case of a creative individual to talk about their own work. If he is the editor of the Twitter account, then we are allowed to describe this and cite it to said Twitter account: a writer writing about one of his own projects. Skyerise (talk) 12:28, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

The Twitter source being discussed here is regarding a Twitter-based journal called the lickety-split, which is ostensibly separate from Chen...at least as it is presented in the article, as a journal edited by Chen. In this case, it is not a source of information about [himself] but a source of information about the lickety-split, which is not notable and has no third-party sources to imply it is such. WP:ABOUTSELF specifically should not involve claims about third parties , such as literary journals, even if they are edited by a single person.

As for whether WP:ABOUTSELF is intended to cover the self-published projects of creative individuals: it simply isn't the case. wound theology◈ 12:36, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

You are wrong about that last statement. It specifically states that it applies to self-published sources including Twitter in an article which is about the writer (self) of the source used. Feel free to get an informed second opinion at WP:RSN, which regularly answers this type of question. If they say I'm wrong, I won't object further. Skyerise (talk) 12:39, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Even conceding that WP:ABOUTSELF applies here -- which I don't agree with, of course -- I don't think that it was intended specifically for creative individuals talking about their own work. Rather, it was intended to allow self-published media as sources for notable individuals to describe themselves (e.g. their opinions or personal claims.) wound theology◈ 12:54, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Funny how you are not so sure of yourself once I request that you get a third opinion from informed parties. Skyerise (talk) 12:55, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Mainly because you misunderstood my argument, but fine, I'll make a post at WP:RSN. wound theology◈ 12:57, 10 April 2024 (UTC)