User:Niteowlneils/WIWO

Editing articles
I delete very little from articles I edit. I sincerely believe anything I have removed, virtually all Wikipedians would agree was either POV, or patent nonsense. Especially when doing New Pages patrol, I do delete more words, but it is typically in an attempt to improve the grammar, or state things more specifically and/or accurately, etc. In other words, I try to keep the intended content, just in a clearer form.

Women's "measurements"
I do not believe they should be included in any person's biography on Wikipedia (with a possible exception for a small handful (so to speak) of people whose bust size is their primary claim to fame). Reasons:
 * 1) It is POV to list female measurements, but not male
 * 2) Inherently unverifiable--unless you have a tape measure, and access to the person
 * 3) Variable--just because the measurements might be true today, who knows about tomorrow

VfD votes
In general, I have three guiding precepts. First, while WP is not paper, I think the article-to-editor ratio needs to be kept to a managable level. Second, from a user perspective, I think having to make an extra click to an article that can never be more than a couple lines is a waste of time/resources. Finally, I have concerns when overly-detailed/redundant/uninteresting/etc. facts overwhelm the salient/interesting/unique content. A good example of this I think was the individual SoBe drink articles, which I'll discuss in more detail below.

9/11 victims
My votes are mostly based on current WP consensus guidelines that state that they (and Madrid, etc. victims) shouldn't be included unless they were separately notable. If the policy was changed, I probably would not complain (well, if we started including 9/11 victims, but not Madrid and other terrorist attack victims, I'd have problems with it being too US-centric). But we don't list otherwise unnotable earthquake or serial killer victims, so I lean towards supporting the current policy. I also support changing the 9/11 memorial to include victims of other major terrorist attacks, such as the Madrid bombings--Newsweek called it "Europe's 9/11". Anything less seems US-centric.

Fictional characters and objects
Usually, the guiding precept is potential for length of article. If a character or object can only ever be a couple of lines, why make the user click to see the info? Another factor in this area is, just how widely notable is the character/object? A character or object that only appears in one episode, too me, is unlikely to develop into a full article, so it shouldn't be included as a separate article.

TV series Compared to WP stated policy/guideline, I am an inclusionist in some ways--I don't think most fic chars are worthy of separate articles. However, I think separate episode articles are valuable, as they can not only include char details, but also plot details and production details (crew, date of first airing, etc.). Of course, I see this limited to "classic" fiction, such as Star Trek, Star Wars, Tolkien, etc.)

Products
Especially in rapidly evolving areas like "cell phones", I don't believe we should have articles on every model by every manufacturer. A list in the main mfr article is fine, with notable differences between versions. If it gets too big, a separate, single article per product line is fine (EG one article for the evolution of Canon copiers, another for Canon digital cameras, another for Canon SLR cameras, etc.). I am for including information; my main objection is separate articles for almost alike products. Separate articles in such categories should be limited to major breakthroughs, not just incremental gains. Info should also be unique, and non-obvious. The SoBe VfD votes are a clear example of my leanings. I strongly supported including the company article, but opposed the individual product listings. The story of how the company became so widespread, so fast, should be interesting/encyclopedic--the common ingredients of their products from their labels, not really. If all the product info had been condensed into one article, structured like "here are the ingredients all their products have in common", followed by a "these product families have these ingredients in common", then finally "here are the ingredients that make each product unique", I would have voted to keep. Basically, don't drown out the interesting/encyclopedic info with repetitive, redundant info.