Talk:Chen Chen (poet)

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Arts and Entertainment

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group.

Poetry Low‑importance

	Poetry portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poetry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of poetry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoetryWikipedia:WikiProject PoetryTemplate:WikiProject PoetryPoetry articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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