User:JzG/And the band played on...

The history of a band article on Wikipedia...


 * Three guys at school think of a great idea for a band. They create a Wikipedia article to celebrate this.  It gets deleted.
 * They play their first gig at the local school. They create a Wikipedia article to celebrate this.  It gets deleted.
 * The band sets up its official website on Geocities. A brand new article is written which uses this as a source.  It's deleted as a copyvio.
 * They actually get together and record a demo track. They create a Wikipedia article to celebrate this.  It gets deleted and protected.
 * The band sets up an official MySpace (to distinguish it from all the fan versions which are surely out there somewhere if only we could find them). This is obviously a reliable source, so deletion review is necessarily required.  It fails.
 * One of them leaves. They change the name of the band.  Obviously the new band needs a Wikipedia article... It gets deleted at WP:AFD.
 * The band saves up enough money to self-produce an album. Clearly it is vital that the world know about this, so a Wikipedia article is created.  It is deleted as a G4 repost, deletion reviewed because it is completely different (i.e. now has a self-published album) and deletion is endorsed.
 * The band gets three gigs on a tour by a slightly less anonymous band. A tour!  Back to Wikipedia.  Back to DRV.  Back to AFD.  Back to the bitbucket.
 * The band is mentioned in Time Out's gig guide. A mention in a secondary source! Surely now is the time for that article?  But no: it fails because the mention is trivial and singular.  Deleted again, protected this time.
 * The band acquires a small but dedicated fanbase. The terrible injustice of not having a Wikipedia article when even nonentities like Queen have one is mentioned.  Protected deletion expires and hours later a new article is created.  And AfDd.  The deletion debate is mentioned on the band's blog, and hundreds of brand new users come along to tell us how fantastically notable and important the band is.  Hard-hearted editors point to the total absence of reliable sources, and the article is deleted again.
 * The forum attacks the Wikipedia admin who deleted the article, the article is taken to DRV and deletion and salting endorsed. More attacks on the band's forum lead to a speedy close of the review.

By this time it has become virtually impossible for any new article on this band to survive a deletion debate, even when they make the front cover of Rolling Stone, because the relentless use of Wikipedia for vanity has pissed the community off to such an extent.

The moral of this story is: Wikipedia is not a free webhost or a medium for advertising. Try to use it as such and it might just backfire.