User:B.Wind
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sorry about the semi-blank page. Somebody with no self-control decided to vandalize it. I'll work on this page when I have an opportunity to do so.
In the meantime... Hello!
...and would an admin please check the vandalism and the user who decided to pee electronically on this page? Many thanks. B.Wind 01:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
PS: Discussions about anything I edited should be directed to my talk page. Many thanks for your understanding.
Contents |
BW's new rules for AfDs (to be added as they arrive to me)
Television programs
1. If the article of a TV program doesn't indicate where the show was/is broadcast (network, local channel, or syndicated), I shall immediately conclude that the article deserves deletion, regardless of notability of the program.
2. All series of over-the-air broadcast networks (NBC, ABC, CBS, DuMont, Fox, UPN, WB, i/Pax/ION, The CW, My Network TV, Univisión, Telemundo, Telefutura) should have articles, even if they were canceled before their second episode (e.g., Turn-On, Snip, Emily's Reasons Why Not, The Rich List), but the article must meet Wikipedia standards.
3. When a question arises about the notability of a program that originated outside of the United States, I tend to defer to an editor who is a resident of the country of origin of the program. If I hear no such feedback, I tend to default to "keep" for series; and in the case of individual episodes, if I find nothing relevant within a 10-minute search for the series, I'd lean toward a merge or deletion. Also, there are plenty of American TV series that don't deserve individual articles for individual episodes.
4. Local access TV and podcasts are inherently non-notable for the purposes of Wikipedia, unless they have a direct link to a notable event or person (and a person cannot become notable on the basis of his/her podcasts by themselves).
Musical groups
1. One (or two) sentence articles indicate lack of noteworthiness and should be deleted.
2. Articles of musical acts must include (at least a partial) lineup for legitimacy. No bandmembers' names mean no notoriety.
3. In almost every case, the notability of an up-and-coming group is greater than that of any member in it. The only exceptions are groups that are joined/formed by an established musician.
4. First-person articles are vanity; second-person articles are spam.
5. There are two things you can do with a band article that is an orphan: you can "adopt it" by finding an appropriate article that can make a worthwhile Wikilink to it, or you can put it out of its misery. If a band's article is an orphan, think about why it is an orphan in the first place.
6. The harder a band member fights an AfD, the more likely the delete vote is the correct one. Notable musicians don't have the time to do the fighting.
7. Anybody using Wikipedia to promote an up-and-coming act is misusing Wikipedia. By the limited number of readers in a particular area of the world, Wikipedia cannot be an effective promotional tool for regional groups even if it were permitted in the first place. Wikipedia cannot establish notability for the act; instead, the act should work hard to establish its own notability sufficiently enough for inclusion of an article in Wikipedia... and then Wikipedia can reflect that notability.
Thought of the Moment
"I've suffered for my music. Now it's your turn."
