Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Howard

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. a VfD is not a way to fix a NPOV problem. Woohookitty 09:00, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Howard

[edit]

This page is getting out of hand. Edits happen frequently, with both sides claiming POV bias. Propose locking until such time as everyone remembers that this is only the internet. Taoistlumberjak 19:52, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless his publisher and published works (ISBN) can be documented -- the article seems to suggest he is merely an on-line artist (it's hard to tell) -- and until the trifling controversies are either deleted from the article or asserted to be significant and documented. Paul Klenk 20:03, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The only reason this keeps getting deleted is that no one has the guts to take a stand against SeanHoward and make it NPOV whether he damn likes it or not. NPOV is Wikipedia policy and no matter what the person the article is about says can change that. -Hoekenheef 20:20, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. BTW, the current revision seems OK to me POVwise? Sdedeo 20:31, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's been bumpy but I think we're finally getting close to something worth keeping. --Spinn2 20:41, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, obviously. VfD is not for resolving POV disputes in an article where an NPOV version must surely exist. -Splash 21:49, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a vanity page for others to exert opinions on my character. I am just an online artist and my contributions have their own pages, making this entry superfluous. Controversies (recently removed and/or reduced before VfD) are insignificant and unworthy of mention now that I have retreated from public life (or else they would be mentioned on other people's pages as well, but are not). It's about me personally, making it impossible to keep NPOV or factually accurate. Wikipedia is not a place to nurture grudges. Delete. --SeanHoward 02:35, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • An entire sub-article could be given to PA's numerous controversies; for comparison, Strawberry Shortcake and Cayetano Garza make absolutely no mention of PA whatsoever, and record thereof doesn't seem to be available on Wikipedia at all. On the other hand, people complain whenever I redirect a cartoonist to his webcomic, and Howard happens to have two, making Howard's page more useful in the context of simply having an article on him. But despite being an even more notable personality in webcomics, Scott Kurtz's page redirects to PvP. No vote for now. Nifboy 07:22, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not the purpose of vfd. Trollderella 09:18, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. That the article on a notable subject is subject to POV disputes is not a reason to delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:57, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a viable article on a real subject. Mr. Howard simply wants it deleted becasue it no longer suits his purposes. CharlieFandango (Check!) 10:46, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; If there's a problem with edit wars, etc., try making a post on WP:RFC. ral315 17:49, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Don't mistake this for purely a POV dispute. If it had not already been vfd, I would requested it myself on the grounds that this page unfairly singles me out amongst other webcomic creators for the sole purpose of keeping petty grudges alive, and contributes nothing to wikipedia that the entries on my webcomics don't already. It's not that it currently has POV issues, it's that it never will have anything but POV issues. I mention this only because it appears people are voting to keep it purely on the abstract principle that deleting a page doesn't solve edit wars - the issue is far complex than that. Unless some individual will stand up and take editorial responsibility for the material written in this page, it's just a convenience for personal slander. It's a POV entry. As the person the entry is about, is my wish to remain a private citizen and not a public figure to be ignored by wikipedia? --SeanHoward 19:19, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I won't say "gave up your status as a private citizen," but when you decided to make a webcomic and put it on the internet, you basically said, "Hey, look at what I am doing!" Doing that basically makes you a public figure. Let me put it this way: If Bono suddenly decided to retire and become a private citizen, then that's all fine and dandy, yet people will still remember him as he was. Therefore they will write things about him and his life and music, and just because he goes away doesn't take away the memory of him. It's basically the same situation with you, Sean. You made yourself known and even now that you have decided to "retire," you will still be remembered for your comics, your strong stand against copyright violation, and the PA thing (unfortuantly). -Hoekenheef 22:22, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Your wish to have a particular page deleted will be considered along with all other editors' wishes. Once the page exists, it belongs to noone and noone can force its deletion — not even the subject. If you didn't want the page, you shouldn't have made it in the first place. WP:AUTO cautions as such. We have many pages that have permanent POV disputes on them. George W. Bush springs to mind. -Splash 23:17, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
He didn't create it, as far as I can tell. (And does this whole bullet belong on the discuss page? I don't know how that works for VfD pages.) --Spinn2 00:46, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's ok, almost anything goes in a VfD discussion. I thought he made it from reading the above comments. Clearly not, I'm sorry. But anyway, we don't delete articles just because someone doesn't like us having an article on them, unless it is in someway illegal. Charges of libel should be taken to the Wikimedia Foundation. -Splash 00:53, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What would constitute illegal? Publishing the name of a minor without consent, like my daughter's name? How about the fact that the dispute in question is simply libel against my person, with Wikipedia being used to repeat such damaging claims from an authoritative source? If not illegal, then how about just useless? Since I don't talk about my personal life online, the only reasons this page is to talk about my comics - which have their own entries and are more than capable of representing themselves without an associated author's page - and to repeat libelous statements verbatim without regard to simple things like... I don't know... facts, evidence, investigation, morals, or competence? I mean, I'm the world's foremost expert on me. What good is an article which not only ignores that expertise, but stands completely in defiance of it? What good is an article which can be used to defame, attack, or otherwise slander me that I do not have the tools to easily and quickly correct? There's no reason for this article to exist, and unless someone is willing to take legal responsibility for what goes into this article as it goes in, it represents a dangerous threat to my privacy, my reputation, and my personal well being. People get extra privs to edit their own user pages against vandalism, and yet I am forced to sit by, banned due to reverting the same malicious vandalism four times in 24 hours? That is completely unacceptable. Delete this article or take some damn responsibility for what happens to it. --SeanHoward 03:24, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"it represents a dangerous threat to my privacy, my reputation, and my personal well being." Oh really. Then let me ask you. Has anyone ever come straight up to your home and throw rocks at windows, spray painted a slander on your garage, or done "donuts" on your lawn because of any of this? I will say it again, when you decide to make a webcomic you said, "Hey, take a gander at me and my work!" Oh, plus asking for someone to take some "damn responsibility", I think the already have tried to, but you come behind them spewing things like, "Oh, don't mention any of my incidents with other webcomic authors because it will tarnish my reputation." Get over yourself, Sean. Yes, there will be POV problems with this are, and do you know why? It's because there are idiots here who believe it is fun and enjoyable to vandalism pages, but they are not the majority. The majority of users want to help make Wikipedia betterand that includes the Sean Howard article. -Hoekenheef 10:51, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have had my personal property damaged and I have received very personal and detailed death threats over the very material which Wikipedia seems absolutely incapable of keeping straight. Is my moral peril not enough? When was the last time you had threats on your home answering machine? And I'm not complaining about obvious vandalism. That's not a problem. It's people who make subtle, but very malicious accusations on a webpage about me without having a damn clue what the hell really went on. Were you there? Did you read the email I sent to Gabe and Tycho? Did you see the forum avatars? Did you share PMs with the people who used them? Did you talk with the forum admin who dealt with it? Did you have an email conversation with Gabe or Tycho later? No. You didn't, which means you don't even remotely have half the facts and have exactly zero business writing about it. Nobody does, because I'm the only one with the facts - and here I am trying to actually share those facts, and I'm fought every damn step of the way by jerks like you. If wikipedia can't be used to actually share facts about my life on a webpage dedicated to facts about my life, what good is this wiki crap anyway? What recourse do I have to protect myself against wikipedia except to have the article simply deleted? --SeanHoward 02:32, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for one, if the facts you have differ from what's written, the process of getting that changed is more presentation and discussion, and less vulgarity and invective. If you didn't let your anger push people away from you so much, you might have an easier time bringing them together. --Spinn2 03:33, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe if you would calmly list the things that happened in the incident things would work out, the facts would be straight and we could all move on to other things. But having a fit is not going to solve the problem. -Hoekenheef 10:36, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I did. The reason I showed up here was because hard facts were being changed into alleged facts. Something that absolutely did happen (and proven) was being changed to "may have" happened. I came in, wrote down all the facts, accompanied by two dozen links to evidence to back them up from third party sources, only to have that material changed. Then a quote is put in the thing which is taken COMPLETELY out of context and implies absolutely incorrect things. Then I get accused of POV simply because I'm the only one who is qualified to comment - there are no facts here that have been provided by anybody but me. I've spent literally years trying to clear my name of these baseless accusations, and you guys have a problem because the FACTS happen to agree with my side of the story and not the baseless slander of some guy who never even had a shred of evidence to support his side in the first place. Hell, even in this section, my comments have been changed - granted, they did use a word that you can see on NYPD Blue or The Daily Show, but it is dishonest. I said "shitload" because that word had exactly the sort of connotation that I wished to convey. Removing that word without notice changes the sentence. Wiki's policy tells me not to curse, but it tells you not to censor cursing. YOU CHANGED THE FACTS! It doesn't matter one bit what you think about me as a person. I could be, and am, the grumpiest person in the world, but you can't go changing facts and starting edit wars simply because you dislike me. Until you guys accept that I'm not only a primary source, but the only source period, this article will be nothing but conjecture and pure fantasy as you guys write what you think happened with exactly ZERO research or understanding of the topic at all. You write what you write because you hate me or because your search for NPOV tells you to discount the only source because HE WAS THERE, not because you have any factual evidence or anything intelligent to contribute. And Hoekenheef, it's amazing how quickly your tone changed. --SeanHoward 15:11, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Until you guys accept that I'm not only a primary source, but the only source period," Not true. I would also accept Gabe as a primary source for information as well.--Leth 15:23, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
On some things yes. He can comment on relatively few things, actually. For instance, he'd be considered a secondary source on the actual forum discussions (if that. It's obvious he barely glanced at it). He would be a primary source on the email I sent him, but his interpretation of why things were written the way they were must be discounted. If the author says he wrote something and somebody disagrees, the author deserves the benefit of the doubt unless irrefutable proof exists otherwise. So, the amount of things that he can talk about with authority are few. It's a moot point anyway, because I don't see Gabe here, and you guys certainly aren't qualified to talk for him. --SeanHoward 16:00, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's not moot at all; it illustrates why people are giving you so much resistence when you say you have the facts and are the only source of facts. Here's a summary of how that conversation just went:
[Sean]: I am the only primary source.
[Leth]: Not true, Gabe is also a primary source.
[Sean]: So what, Gabe's not here.
The point is, you're not the only primary source. And when you insist you are, it reduces your credibility. Especially when you tell people that another primary source must be discounted simply because you say so.
Now, are you the only primary source currently available? This might be true, I don't know. But this does not appear to be the statement you made. What you said is that you're the only source qualified to report on many of these issues and that we, and Wikipedia, are at fault for not recognizing this simple truth. --Spinn 16:57, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Policy doesn't say not to censor cursing. It says to leave it in when it's relevant to the article (like there's no reason to bleep everything in the Fuck article, for example). But, you're right, I might've overstepped editing etiquette there. Were this an article, we'd've discussed my edit rather than your yelling at me.
Plus, if you want to open a discussion about breaking guidelines, I would love to participate. There are a whole lot of behavior guidelines you've been regularly knocking down that I'd love to discuss. --Spinn2 20:11, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The section on avoiding profanity only covers writing articles with "brilliant prose". The section on Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines doesn't say anything about profanity, but it does distinctly say "Don't misrepresent other people: As a rule, refrain from editing others' comments without their permission". You didn't just overstep. You jumped off. Besides, I use profanity well - you can say a lot with one word, more concise that way. "Wikipedia needs to show more responsibility" or "Wikipedia needs to show a shitload more responsibility". World of difference there, huh? I can't think of another word that would put emphasis on the right amount of disdain and distrust by which I judge wikipedia's responsibility and credibility. It's really quite pithy. It consists of pith. --SeanHoward 16:00, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You may be right about this. I jumped the gun. I should have allowed your vulgarity to stand, lest I give people an inaccurate impression of you.
However, do now make the mistake of using this example to invalidate everything I have ever done. As I said, were this an article, it probably would've been raised in a point of discussion and I would've stood by it or backed down, as necessary. --Spinn 16:57, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh did my tone change? Hmmm...Maybe I was trying to reason with you in a calm way. Just a thought.-Hoekenheef 10:50, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Even if people can't agree on all the POV issues the page still has useful information about the whole pixel art controversy, and it isn't worth scrapping the page and the history of squidi.net just because some people have strong feelings about who was in the right. Some people would prefer to just delete the article or bully others into removing it because they don't like its content. Worst case we could lock a stable version of the page that relies on the facts, but this isn't unresolvable. The entry contains the most relevant information there is about Squidi and the comic at the moment so long as it remains off the web.--BigCow 23:49, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and those interested in the POV issues will, hopefully, reach consensus. As for Mr. Howard and the "public figure" issue, I'd just make the analogy to a free press and news media. Can a person prevent a newspaper from publishing a news story about them? Under U.S. law, no, given the after-the-fact remedies of libel and invasion of privacy causes of action. I do not see anything in the fact of existence of the article, or in the content of the current version, that is either libelous or invasive of Mr. Howard's privacy. MCB 07:09, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A person cannot prevent a news story being written about them, however there are laws that pertain to what the press can print - laws which do not and can not apply to wikipedia. The press has editorial responsibility for what they print. They can be sued for damages if they print something inaccurate or unfairly damaging. On wikipedia, there is no one to take responsiblity. Yeah, there's "policy", but it's not enforced so much as encouraged, and edits are reverted after they are made public, not verified beforehand by an editorial staff with integrity and honor. I am not a particularly famous person and many of the facts about the controversies that people seem so insistant on putting on this page are little more than hearsay and vulgar misrepresentations. Because I'm not famous, the amount of people on this planet that could create a factual summary of events that only I was involved in can be counted on one hand (hell, one finger - me). Wikipedia editors without understanding or appreciation of the subject would find it impossible to properly represent facts and could be easily mislead with malicious edits. Simply put, I'm not famous enough for anybody but me to know what the hell is going on with my life, and I'm not interested in fighting to maintain this worthless article against jerks and vandals. Unless wikipedia can guarantee more responsibility than has been shown in the past three weeks, it has no business discussing my personal life at all. Period. Wikipedia isn't the press. Don't even remotely pretend that it is. --SeanHoward 08:04, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - provided that some method of resolving the POV issues can be arranged. This seems likely. Nae'blis 21:34:26, 2005-08-30 (UTC)
  • Keep, make sure enough people keep an eye on it, and let's calm down a bit with the drama. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 08:45, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but make sure the entire PA incident is fixed. Also, work on making the entire thing more NPOV, and maybe lock it once it is. The artice brings some useful information on Mr. Howard, and should not be deleted just because he 'says so' Although I do believe he has a right to enforce some NPOV rules about it, it should remain. Example: Say J.K. Rowlings (or for that matter, anybody at all) does not approve of their listed entry for wikipedia, or does not want themselves featured within the database. Such a desire is inconsistent to the desire of wikipedia itself, which is a database of information. The deletion of information just because the subject does not want to be covered is rather fallacious. Mr. Howard, you do exist, do you not? If so, then wikipedia, as a source of information, is fairly duty bound to present information about you (or anybody) in a NPOV matter. Fix the POV tendencies and lock the article if necessary. But do not delete it. User: Scion of the Light
  • Merge and Redirect to his primary work. Hell, even Scott Kurtz only exists as a redirect to PvP. This article isnt even about Sean Howard, just his works, each of which already exist on separate pages. Pages on artists are expected to have some degree of biographical information and cite their sources. As far as I'm aware, there are no sources on Seans life other than the man himself, and including information from him would violate both Wikipedia:Vanity and Wikipedia:Verifiability. As such, there's no scope for this article to expand to the point of inclusion. GeeJo (t) (c) 07:18, September 4, 2005 (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 article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sean_Howard&oldid=1080261078"