User blog comment:PsiCubed2/Let's Bring this to vote, shall we?/@comment-3427444-20170625080751/@comment-30754445-20170629153028

Denis, wikistats file you've provided just proves my point.

First of all, according to those stats, the percentage of articles edited in the English wikipedia is only 3%. The "34%" figure includes quite a few anomalies (like 5 million bot-created articles in cebuano).

Secondly, those stats don't tell us what percentage of these articles remain intact. For all we know, 99% of the bot-created articles could have been spam or vandalism or who-knows-what. So this 3% figure is actually an upper bound.

Thirdly, even if we took your 34% figure at face value, the situation here is much worse.

But most importantly: As an end-user of the ordinary wikipedia, I've never felt that I was browsing through bot-ville. Even if those articles were made by bots (and I doubt it) they don't look like they were made by bots, and that is the only thing that really matters.

So no, none of this can be compared to the situation here, where 90% of the articles are stubs that say "number X was created by person Y". Now, if you show me a statistic that 90% of the articles on wikipedia look like that, I'll concede your point.

As for having an article with your name in the title: This community has already decided to give you the honor, by entering dozens of your numbers in the mainspace. If "Exomixommwil" and "Quintinphi" are notable enough to get their own articles, then surely "Denis Maksudov" should also make the cut?