Talk:M.R.M. Parrott

This page is an archive of the discussion surrounding the proposed deletion of a page entitled M.R.M. Parrott.

The result of the debate was to delete.

From the Village Pump:

Contents

1 Self-promotion? 2 Irrelevant 3 Understanding Wikipedia 4 VfD tags 5 Citations for out of print reviews? 6 From VfD 7 Done Deal 8 R.I.P. 9 Post-deletion comments

Self-promotion?

Please have a look at [1] (http://en2.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=165.247.188.80) -- seems to be a case of (shameless?) self-promotion in my eyes. -- till we *) 17:04, Dec 30, 2003 (UTC)

I think you may be right.The one book I tracked down at Amazon appeared to me to be self-published and had only one review that gave it 5 stars! Highly suspicious considerring the concerted effort made at Wikipedia by one anon to promote this author all over the place - Marshman 17:30, 30 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Considering the fact that his bio (http://www.mrmparrott.com/bio.htm) gives a link to his wikipedia entry on the same day it was created suggests that 165.... is in fact mr Parrott. --snoyes 17:36, 30 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Seems like MRM is generelly good at self-promoting -- the only external reviews on his books in his own small publishing house are by an "Frederick Morissette", apparently from the Netherlands. A Google search (http://www.google.de/search?hl=de&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&edition=de&q=%22Frederick+Morissette%22&meta=) for him gives exactly two results -- both ultra-exited reviews of books by MRM. (BTW: A search for "MRM Parrott" gives 120 hits). Should be mentioned on M.R.M. Parrott -- till we *) 18:13, Dec 30, 2003 (UTC)

Actually, could have been better at it. Until now, apparently none of you had heard the name before ;)

Irrelevant

On the other hand, you don't know who wrote the page, or really any of these pages, and even if it is self-written, it is virtually indistinguishable from many, many entries on this site. All the films and books, recent authors and artists, you name it. It is all self-promotion, or hired promotion, and that is not a reason for deletion. Also, small press is not the same as self-publishing. Just because you don't like something, doesn't make it bad....

You are mistaken. Wikipedia has a policy of a neutral point of view. Because we can find nothing on this person apart form what he has written himself, this article cannot be neutral. -- Tarquin 22:12, 30 Dec 2003 (UTC)

So, this site only covers popular culture? A person has to be either dead, world famous, or bestselling to be covered here?? Isn't the purpose of an encyclopedia to expand information and knowledge??

Pretty much, yup ;) The purpose of an encyclopedia is to summarize existing knowledge, not to create it from scratch. Hence we don't have original scientific theories, nor do we have artists who are as yet unknown. -- Tarquin 10:36, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Summarize existing knowledge, yes, but bar entry to non-bestsellers, no. I think you are pushing your points too hard. If you kept this line of thinking, Wikipedia would be four or five pages of Newtonian science and endless marketing pages of bestselling books and Warhol knockoffs. Instead, the information is incredibly vast, and I see lots of pages on less than well-known figures.

Anyway, have a look at the article again, as it's more NPOV now.

Don't get me wrong - I think most bestselling authors are dross. But this person seems to be not so much "less than well-known" as "totally unknown". If he had been, say, nominated for a literary award, or if we could find reviews of his work in literary journals, then I'd say sure, keep the article. -- Tarquin 16:16, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Older reviews are out of print. Also, it is pretty hard to get around the book marketing machine these days. It is getting to be that either a book is well-promoted by a big house and nominated for awards before you ever see it, or it is completely ignored by the industry, especially small and micro-press books.

You seem hellbent on deleting this article, regardless of the fact that hundreds like it are already rightly here. Go ahead and delete it then, Tarquin, and feel better about yourself, that you would have successfully beaten down someone who wants due recognition in the smallest of ways, a piddly wikipedia stub article. My appologies for stumbling into your sacred domain of popular American culture masquerading as encyclopedic knowledge.

You seem to really simply regard Wikipedia as a way to promote yourself (and falsely in at least one area: ethics). Personally, I have no problem with a NPOV article about M.R.M Parrott, but you can not really believe it is encyclopedic for anyone on the planet to submit a resume and expect it to be accepted on the grounds that YOU see "less worthy" articles allowed to remain in. If that is the level of your philosophical abilities, I'm not at all impressed, and would suggest that is another area where you may have stretched the truth - Marshman

Nice troll. Good luck in academia.

Well, adding yourself to List of ethicists, which states in the introductory paragraph "List of ethicists including religious or political figures recognized by those outside their tradition as having made major contributions to ideas about ethics, ...", is a case of self-aggrandisement and self-promotion. There really is no argument about that, which is why you resort to debating tactics such as calling others trolls. My take on the situation: We have thousands of contributors, and if one of them knows your work and decides to write an article about you, then that is cool. Writing an article on oneself however, is a pretty sad thing to do. --snoyes 02:21, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Textbook troll and grandstanding.

Understanding Wikipedia

Actually, you have me all wrong. I'm pretty much an anti-academe that has traditionally supported the work of those (including myself) that do very well outside of those "normal" knowledge channels. Where you are having a problem is in defining those channels as being foolish, when in fact they were and continue to be developed by ordinary people (not "in" people) to serve very useful purposes. I think if you gained a bit of humility (and if your writing is as good as YOU must think it is) you would eventually fit in well here. Wikipedia is, in one sense, a perfect place for people with ideas, talent, and knowledge that have never had an opportunity to "publish" or otherwise gain recognition for those talents. I hope you stay long enough to look around and really see what this is all about - Marshman 04:26, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I see, Marshman, sorry to assume. I'm not sure if I said they were foolish, though. They are official channels, and as such, certainly tend to be snobbish about what is outside them. Humility lies not in avoiding self-promotion in a commercial world, but in admiting that others have something to say. I wouldn't trade my academic experiences for anything, but that doesn't mean I have to play by their rules forever. I learned long ago, and perhaps too late for my own good, that if I wanted to actually publish my work and move on to the next with a minimum of fuss, dear academia, at least in America, was never going to accept me. Many of my positions are "out of fashion" or challenge the accepted Anglo-American dogma. It is not that I try to challenge it, mind you, but it just works out that way.

Many people see that as a lack of humility, but it is really a matter of searching for the truth. I will continue to put out my works, and I will continue to promote them. A few vocal Lusers on this site or any other will not deter me, nor should they deter anyone. I do appreciate your invitations, though. I am already helping out with I-E, and to be frank, had I taken the time beforehand to see the difference between the two sites, and to see how cruel some of you are, I probably would not have bothered starting a page here. Still, though, this discussion will benefit someone, even if it doesn't directly benefit me...

No doubt there is, for everyone, an intial period here where it seems this is a cruel place, especially if you stick your head out by "Being Bold". Most newbies can not easily handle what the statement "Be prepared to have your contributions edited mercilessly" means (I had that problem). And any communicatioon that is not face to face can easily seem much meaner than it actually is. Indeed, I suspect many talented people do not stick around because of their sensitivity to criticism. But what I meant by "defining those channels [established routes to publishing and/or academic achievement] as foolish" is that you shun them as being irrelevant, despite the fact that the methods at least (if not the "routes") are in fact relevant and important (they are pretty much the way the world works). And while you clearly are trying to get to the same place (recognition for your talents in writing and philosophy), you may be too sensitive to benefit from criticism (mean spirited or otherwise). Personally, I would think it could be a valuable experience for you to tough things out here rather than retreat into I-E, which seems to be just Wikipedia w/o peer review. Just my musings 8^) Good luck! - Marshman 18:28, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Hi again :) Well, I certainly do not mind the editing. In fact, that much is fun, but then, I have plenty of other outlets for my writing, so I'm not likely to get into editing wars. I don't mind criticism, and I've been into it with the best trolls and flamers on Usenet, Slash and K5. Most trolling is pure opinion, some is humour. Much of it is reptilian knee-jerk reaction to someone "being bold", as you put it.

What bothers me is the irony of some of the criticism here, even yours early on, and the unintelligent criticism of some of the posers. Granted, I've probably not helped with a few comments, but my "mistake" was not nearly as dire as some of you wish to portray (MANY artists, musicians, writers, etc, do at least some of their own promotion, some do all of it. If you didn't know that, now you do), and wikipedia is an example of self-publishing par excellence.

Anyway, you are still putting words in my mouth ;) I don't think official channels are irrelevant or unimportant. I think they are marginalizing, by their very definition. Of course, I like many things which come out of official channels, (The Matrix Trilogy, for example) but that doesn't imply everything creative must pass through them. I'm more interested in the work itself and its quality, rather than its relation to popular legitimation schemes. George Lucas' films, for example, are by their very description self-produced, Aimee Mann's recent albums are self-produced, and there are many examples of independent music, films, artworks, theatre, and so on which all of you happily consume without question. When it comes to writing, though, there is a double standard, presumably handed down from all those centuries of scholastics telling us they were the only ones "qualified" to issue language onto paper.

So, that is what irks me about what I'm reading here - the irony of prejudice from what sound like a whole lot of frustrated, would be writers. If I appear to be retreating to another site (and remember, I was invited), that is why. Life is too short, creative energy too precious, to spend any of it propping up now deconstructed legitimation schemes of the past. You postmodernists out there should comprehend that much...MP

I really think a lot of what you are taking as mean spirited has to do with the medium. Typing responses to things is just not a natural form of communication. Oddly, it seems both too sponteneous and too prone to reworking. My "early on" stuff that bothered you may be just my use of the word "garbage" (otherwise, I think I've been pretty fair) - but realize that my reference there might have been to something entirely different from what you took it to be (that is the crux of the problem: little or no real chance for you to immediately challange my use of specific words, forcing me to speak more clearly). But I understand what you mean by the irony of some of the criticism.

Anyway, I think the problem was (is) not exactly what you perceive it to be. You used Wikipedia in way that it is not supposed to be used (you have to admit that much, even if not to the same degree as you got accused). Then you repsonded to criticism without signing your responses (a minor social blunder) and attacked several of the detractors (including me)— well that sort of set up the "fight". I did notice that not all of your responses were beligerent (e.g., response to Finlay below), which suggested to me that we Wikipedians (whoever that is - not "old hands"; I've only been here since August 2003) were perhaps having too much "fun" at your expense. So I changed my tack. If you really are selling any of those many books, then you probably have great value as a potential contributor here in several fields. And as I alluded to and you emphasized in response, self-publishing (although somewhat anonymously) IS really what this place is all about. - Marshman 09:45, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I don't think the medium is a good excuse, but it does factor in. You noticed the difference between my various comments, and I notice the differences in yours - it is not accurate to blame it on typing, because it is obviously possible to type nice things as well as ugly things. I also don't worry about specific words, but the spirit of a comment, and as noted, the irony, or apropos what I've seen here, the hypocrisy. I didn't sign the posts, well aware of the social blunder, because I was also having a little fun, exposing the hypocrisy perhaps, but I wanted to get a discussion going (I've had good discussions with Jack and Fred via email, in addition to this nice exchange here with you), and I didn't mind being bait.

It is no blunder, though, to return to snoyes and others what they initiated. I may have used WP somewhat incorrectly, but that does not give license to be so rude and irrational. I absolutely detest the pack animal mentality of pouncing on freshmeat just to feign superiority - you offered a welcome, but only after slinging a fair amount of mud, others were apparently only interested in the mud - trying to impress with snobbery. However, rather than take it personally (and I've had FAR more challenging discussions), I simply addressed the criticism, and returned like with like ("Tickle us, do we not laugh?"). Still, if you want to write your mud-slinging off to the medium, then you have to give me some of the same luxury, right? Also, it is bad form to hurl an insult at someone, then chide them for returning fire.

As for contributing, I intend to do so, and have already, and I again thank you for your kindness on that point. Maybe, I've had an account and been here all along? MP

I think the medium is very good at making comments seem more hurtful than intended, or at the very least creating misunderstandings of exactly what was meant by various words. And there is a harsh reality here that doing some things will result in the merciless editing all users are forewarned about. That said, I do accept your points and apologize if my early comments were "mud slinging". I confess, that for me and apparently many others, the VfD page is one where Wikipedians have fun at the expense of others, in part because most of those others are deserving of what they get — it is often difficult to sort out the entries that are just innocent mistakes from those that are true jabs at the community/project (a form of vandalism). It is a pretty big community here, and all kinds of personalities are active - Marshman 18:32, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

VfD tags

Please don't remove VfD tags until the vote is complete (that's 7 days) or unless you're the person who nominated the article. That's the process. Removing a tag in other circumstances is vandalism, and will result in the perpetrator being banned from Wikipedia. -- Finlay McWalter 22:04, 30 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Sorry Finlay. Thanks for the warning/info.

Citations for out of print reviews?

" Older reviews are out of print." Indeed, but the journals in question remain archived in a variety of sources, including public libraries. Can someone supply the relevant citations? They should, in any event, be added to the article, per Wikipedia:Cite your sources. -- Finlay McWalter 17:59, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)

(Obviously, I'll stay out of this, and please don't yell at me for mentioning it, but a retrievable review I recall going OoP was in the Spartanburg Herald, and I think it has been included on Amazon or BN, but a little Googling (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22m.r.m.+parrott%22+OR+%22parrott%2C+m.r.m.%22+OR+rimric) might help. Anything else OoP which may have been written is probably lost. MP)

I am most completely NOT involved with the debate on here, but I will offer this. I have wonderful free access to the very extensive libraries at the University of Pittsburgh, and would be more than willing to go through the journals, literary reviews, and other archives to find whatever may be OoP. I'm sure that there are other students/professors/etc at other universities who would do the same, as well. Lyellin 08:36, Jan 3, 2004 (UTC)

That would indeed be very helpful. I think someone would need to tell you at least which week of Spartainburg Herald you should look at (as your institution almost certainly has its newspaper archive only in a hard-to-search microfiche format). I really can't understand why other sources should be "lost". -- Finlay McWalter 12:10, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

(Sorry, I was also referring to independent website reviews/comments, of which there have been some, in which cases "OoP" reads "deleted". MP)

How old are the websites? Anything within the last... say 5 years may still be able to be found on sites that take images of pages, if you can refer us to the sites that used to store reviews/comments of your work. Although I would make the arguement that a website review/comment is always of lesser value than a printed source. Lyellin 17:09, Jan 3, 2004 (UTC)

Indeed. Wayback machine is quite comprehensive. Also, we can write to the webmasters of the sites in question and ask either that they restore the page (I've had this done before) or email a copy. -- Finlay McWalter 17:17, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I don't know, I haven't catalogued them, which is why I cannot be more forthcoming. Though a print bias might not be useful for a non-print wiki-encyclopedia, I do understand your point :) USC (http://www.sc.edu/usc/libraries.html) Caroliniana may be of some help... MP

From VfD

• personal promo -- Tarquin 20:56, 30 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • not a valid reason, even if true (all authors entries are promos)
  • a valid reason: a page about an (mostly unkown) author by the author isn'ät exactly an encyclopedic entry. Should be deleted or reduced to a more NPOV page till we *) 21:52, Dec 30, 2003 (UTC)
    • don't see that reason in the guidelines.
      • Please see Wikipedia:Auto-biography. Onebyone 16:03, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • thanks, the new version reflects those guidelines
    • maybe you could offer some NPOV suggestions or just edit it yourself? while you're at it, you could dial back the insults on the Talk:M.R.M._Parrott page.
  • delete - not encyclopedic -- mkrohn 03:57, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, as long as that Barnes and Nobles part is deleted, cause THAT does look like he wants people to go buy his books at my favorite, by the way, book store! Antonio Sleeping Beauty Martin
    • done, thanks for the suggestion. didn't see it that way before...
  • Delete. Self-promotion (and it doesn't even have to be promotion) itself is frowned upon in the guidelines. —Sverdrup(talk) 04:07, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • didn't see that in the guidelines in so many words, and it is not self-promotion. it is an entry about a writer who exists in the history of ideas - you know, the sort of thing encyclopedias are all about...
  • Keep! Author has 10 published books and seems well-respected. If it had been written by a disinterested third-party rather than the author, would you feel it was POV? Well, perhaps it is slightly POV. I would say this article was a candidate for reworking rather than deletion. Anjouli 04:33, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • any suggestions for edits from POV to NPOV?
    • well-respected by whom? According to the talk page, the only material about this guy is written by himself! -- Tarquin 10:37, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • [2] (http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22m+r+m+parrott%22&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search) Anjouli 16:41, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not #18 "vehicle for advertising" see Talk:M.R.M. Parrott. This is a clear case of someone using wikipedia for self-promotion. Maximus Rex 09:23, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Del. Self-promotion of insignificant author. --Wik 12:41, Dec 31, 2003 (UTC)
  • NOTE: please view again. page has been reduced to stubish NPOV style, much like many other unknown author entries on wikipedia...
  • Why is everybody so keen to delete an article on a known philosopher with 10 legitimately published books to his credit? Granted, he has a big head and I don't agree with many of his ideas, but this is ridiculous. Is this the same WP that tolerates all these articles on demons, Star Trek and soap-opera? Anjouli 16:51, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Keep, and I strongly agree w Anjouli, I see an amazing amount of (IMO) garbage on the wiki that nobody thinks to delete, and yet self promotion seems to be a area of extrordinarilly excessive concern. I could make a List of worthless wikipedia articles at least a hundred strong, with none of them surpassing this article in value. Why can't I as a reader look up the author of my book? Personally, I would sooner have space "wasted" on the wiki w self promotion, than with List of fictional dogs or other such foolishness. Jack 17:37, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • You all do realize that it appears most if not all of those books and critiques are self-published? If someone can come up with anything significant to say about this author that was not written by Mr. Parrott, then there should be consideration to keeping the article. Otherwise, it is all self-promotional garbage that any one of us (lacking humility) could put together for ourself about ourself - Marshman 20:01, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • typical academic - you think the only valuable language comes from the official channels. who are you, by the way, and why does your opinion matter?? where have you been published??
      • Do I detect a sock-puppet ? - Marshman
      • Steady on, this isn't part of the conflict between you and "the man". It's a perfectly reasonable request that the encyclopedia article about you, if there is one, should be written by someone other than you, and based on information sources including some which are not you. If nothing else, there is otherwise no way for a reader to get an independent confirmation of judgements like "his work isn't in the tradition of Southern literature". And for reference, the reason Marshman's opinion matters is that he's a regular contributor to Wikipedia. If you create a user account and sign your posts, you'll be one step along the (quite short) route to the same place. Onebyone 04:32, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, it looks fine now. ugen64 03:18, Jan 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • There is a large body of work which M.R.M. Parrott has published which is available online. A NPOV article could be written using that material should anyone take the time to do so. Certainly he erred by writing his own article, but someone who has self-published 10 books, some of which have generated independent interest merits an article. I should point out that if he is worth me making an effort to steal him away for Internet-Encyclopedia, he is also worth being polite to and making a reasonable accomodation with here. Although this is NOT the place for creative philosophical work which seems to be what he does. See Wikipedia:No original research Fred Bauder 13:39, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Autobiography of a nobody. Delete. Salsa Shark 04:07, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Needs some peer review before the product could be called anything more than self-promotion. BTW Ethos of Modernity is hardly a "monograph on Foucault." Sunray 09:33, 2004 Jan 2 (UTC)
    • Wow, another original thinker (not). And FYI, a monograph is "a written account or description of a single thing, or class of things; a special treatise on a particular subject of limited range" (Webster's RUD)
      • Right, well (trying to ignore the Ad Hominem) using the above definition, one wonders whether Parrott believes that Foucault is that “subject of limited range.” I would have thought that this was more an essay on an aspect of Foucault’s thought—in the writer’s own words, “Foucauldian enlightenment.” IMO the autobiographical article on M.R.M. Parrott and his subsequent comments on this page illustrate the problems of self-promotion in Wikipedia. Sunray 19:14, 2004 Jan 2 (UTC)
        • You are right ONLY about one thing: It is your opinion.
  • Delete: No original research; No advertising; No articles which can not attain neutrality because no third-person material is available about the subject of the article; Note by Jimbo on mailing list that people should not create articles on themselves. --snoyes 16:12, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Note that 165.247.188.80 has also added "M. R. M. Parrott" to the List of science fiction authors and the List of short story authors. Googling on "short stories" "M. R. M. Parrott" yields 14 hits. Googling on "science fiction" "M. R. M. Parrott" yields 9. Most of these are blurbs, author's own websites, or various sites where self-listing is possible. I don't think M. R. M. Parrott is widely recognized enough as a short story writer or science fiction writer to be on those lists, and I therefore believe that 165.247.188.80 is simply doing systematic promotion of M. R. M. Parrott. Dpbsmith 01:56, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • The Internet Speculative Fiction Database (http://isfdb.tamu.edu/) never heard of 'im, either. Salsa Shark 02:30, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Systematic promotion indeed! Mr. Parrott has been busy: He placed himself on the List of novelists by nationality--between Henry Miller and Thomas Pynchon--despite the fact that the list is clearly described as being of "well known authors." He has also been placing external links in articles that purport to be "reviews" (for e.g., of Matrix Reloaded; Netochka Nezvanova). Each of these has a prominently displayed ad for his book [1 (http://www.rimric.com/folio/sp02/nn.htm)]. In the case of the Nezvanova piece, his review adds little (other than POV) that is not already contained in the comprehensive Salon.com link. Sunray 08:52, 2004 Jan 4 (UTC)
  • Delete. Subject fails the Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies test, fails the Wikipedia:Google_Test resoundingly (as there's essentially no evidence, bar guerrilla marketing, even of the existence of this person), and fails a reasonable library-search test (as the article's poster cannot identify any independant journal or other publication which covers or reviews the article's subject). On a personal note, I cannot help but find the irony in the poster listing Parrott on List of ethicists. -- Finlay McWalter 23:11, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, if i'm not weighing in too late. --Jerzy 15:15, 2004 Jan 8 (UTC)

Done Deal

I really don't know what you have been waiting for - wasn't this a done deal from day one? Go ahead and delete the article!

And regarding ethics, it's very simple. Ethicists do ethics; M.R.M. Parrott does ethics; therefore, M.R.M. Parrott is an ethicist (this also applies to short stories, poetry, philosophy, novels, photography, design, programming, and so on). Fame is not a prerequisite for ethical meaningfulness, although that might matter to you. Promotion, self or otherwise, is not of any ethical concern in itself (and that is part of a published ethical theory). Besides, even if I were to produce a New York Times book review on my work you would only disregard it as self-promotion, because you didn't find it. The hundreds of Google hits and various independent comments mean nothing to you, even though this is, in point of fact, a website, and at that, a wiki, non-print, spotty, highly biased pseudo-resource website, one which will never be a Britannica.

All of you who have been so (hypo)critical and rude have had plenty of chance to hurl your insults, and nothing is different on this end. Except, you've devalued yourselves, and this site, not me or my work.

It will certainly make you happy to hear I do not wish to be associated with this site, even as an anonymous editor like yourselves. It would feel, unethical, to contribute my time or talent to a group of snobs who merely pose as an online community, all waiting to pounce on newbies, though with nothing but fangs of irony. So, by all means, go ahead and delete. (and yes, this was grandstanding, but at least it was, shall I say, ethically just) MP

It actually seems to me that there is no consensus to delete the page. It may well end up being kept, as have several other pages that have been accused by less generous Wikipedians of being mere vehicles for self-promotion... However, the problem I see with the page is one of verifiability. Wikipedia should only contain information that can be confirmed using previously published material. How much of the information in this page can be confirmed in that way? Even the biography on Parrott's own website doesn't give his date of birth, to take a simple example. References would be nice... -- Oliver P. 10:50, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Ahh, well, it certainly quacked like a done deal... MP

Indeed. No one has argued that we keep this autobigraphy since January 1. On the other hand, there has been considerable evidence presented indicating that this article does not meet the criteria for inclusion. A strong majority have voted for deletion (delete: 14; keep: 4). Sunray 17:29, 2004 Jan 8 (UTC)

R.I.P.

We should credit the benefits of this discussion animated by Mark Parrott and his sock puppet. Every community has values and norms that it behooves a newcomer to learn. It has been said that if a group has a “welcoming edge,” a new person may easily cross the group’s boundary and become a member. Does the WikiEn community make entry easy? In my case it did, but I was actively trying to learn the ropes.

No doubt it is common for a newcomer to think: “What about an article on me?” Let’s face it; in a truly egalitarian society we would all have our own page. Why not? Most of us have noteworthy accomplishments. Heaven knows we didn’t get enough credit…

However, we are engaged in collective enterprise of producing an encyclopedia. As such, as Jimbo and others often remind us, we are not a primary source. There are a few simple ground rules. The parameters are set out—albeit not in one, easily accessible, place. What gets us working as a team though, (and not, as was suggested, a “pack”), is when someone repeatedly, and unrepentantly, transgresses the norms.

So if I were giving the eulogy for M.R.M. Parrott’s “famous person” persona, I would say: The autobiography made us curious, it raised some questions—what’s this about "not fitting within the traditions of the American academies?" When we checked out the links, we found eye-catching design, lots of production, and some nice work...

No question. But, all that and $3.50 will get you a latte. It won’t, in itself, justify a Wikipedia article. Only recognition will do that. Recognition is interpersonal. There is no way one can give it to oneself—no matter how unfair that may seem. Sunray 19:43, 2004 Jan 7 (UTC)

Well, not so much a sock puppet as an alter ego ;) Anyway, I appreciate your humour, Sunray, the compliments of course, and your willingness to come off your own high horse. There will always be newbies to transgress norms, you must accept, either because they do not know better at the time, or because they must challenge a group's feigned superiority over others, or in this case, perhaps it was both. Good luck with your continued vigilance against the hordes. Maybe, in time, I will warm up to WP again...but I will never be assimilated... MP

We certainly should work on making it clearer to newcomers who write personal entries why it's not acceptable here. I think many people assume that because anyone can edit, any content goes. I think we should ask any future self-biographers: would you send this in to Brittanica, and if you did, would you expect them to put it in? Our methods for creating the encyclopedia may be radically different, but we should aim for the same standards -- Tarquin 17:34, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Agreed that we should have a clear message on autobiographies with a test or standard. I don't think that the test you have suggested is adequate though. Someone who thinks highly of their work would unhesitatingly answer "yes!" We need a more objective standard. Perhaps a simple description of the meaning of primary source. Sunray 18:04, 2004 Jan 8 (UTC)

No, no, we should aim for higher standards than Britannica - in terms of both quality and quantity of material. To beat them in quantity (actually, don't we already?), we obviously need to have fewer constraints on what may be included. (To beat them in quality requires only that we keep going...) One constraint on quantity is that we should only include content that is verifiable. As far as I can see, the result after all this discussion is that this isn't, so I suppose that's the end of it... -- Oliver P. 10:27, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I'm concerned about the meaning of the unqualified phrase "fewer constraints", and fear that the catchy phrase may end up being used in arguments against the "higher standards" OP advocates. IMO "fewer constraints" is a given:

• WP is not paper (while, at least for now, EB thinks paper even if it may be at least toying with EMedia
• WP gets more free labor than EB (Why? Dunno, i've got my reasons, but what are all these others --obviously dreamers-- doing here? [wink])
• To the extent that we deliver a higher standard, it may further relax our constraints. (E.g., can we look toward a future where Wiki-vandal is an accepted term of abuse in popular culture, and the constraint of spending time reverting vandalism is reduced? [J's eyes start to glaze over])

That's a vision that leaves out setting fewer constraints, and is not in conflict with the constraints of higher quality and quantity. Perhaps someone will address whether there are areas where these higher standards justify or require our setting fewer constraints than EB does -- rather than leaving that question hanging in the air, as OP and i have. (Or perhaps they'll refer those in my position to the meta where this is perhaps already discussed or under discussion.) --Jerzy 17:33, 2004 Jan 9 (UTC)

Post-deletion comments

I deleted M.R.M. Parrott just now, after the following message was added to my talk page by Angela:

Do you think there is not enough of a rough consensus to delete the article? My view on reading the discussion without actually counting up the votes was that there was, combined with the fact it violates policies of verifiablility etc, I would have regarded it a candidate for deletion were it not for your comment above. Please could you clarify what you think should be done with it. Angela. 16:34, Jan 10, 2004 (UTC)

Having counted the votes (I made it 13 to 4, and two whose opinions I wasn't sure of), I admit that this was a strong majority. Furthermore, no-one who defended the article addressed the concerns about its verifiability. So I decided that the article could be deleted after all. If anyone wishes to argue that the article was wrongly deleted, please comment on Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion and, if you like, my talk page. -- Oliver P. 08:20, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)