Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/La La

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

La La was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was no consensus, but with a majority to keep anyway. Cool Hand Luke 07:24, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This is an article on a recent song in pop music. It's utterly nonnotable, and has little chance of surviving the notability test of time. We're not a song directory. As always for me, this is about the topic being not encyclopedic -- the article itself is poorly written and promo, but I don't think that's relevant for purposes of deletion. Delete this, because nothing should be written on a nonnotable/nonencyclopedic topic like this. --Improv 17:32, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. Wiki is not paper. I read the talk page also and I'm not sure what all the fuss is about, and I will probably call myself fortunate if I never hear the opus in question. Still, there's an awful lot of info there about a supposedly non-notable song. -- Smerdis of Tlön 17:57, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • What if I wrote a ten page essay on my Iguana? Would that show his notability? I don't think so. Wikipedia is not a junkyard -- not everything that could have an article should have an article. Notability plays a role. --Improv 18:09, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • If your iguana lands a recording contract and becomes an MTV starlet, yes. Smerdis of Tlön 19:56, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • Ashlee Simpson has the contract and is a starlet. Her song isn't.Dr Zen 23:53, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Man, I wish people would put this much effort into worthwhile topics. Abstain. -R. fiend 18:23, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Its not an especially notable track so I don't think its worthy of anything more than a mention on the album's page. David Johnson 19:08, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's bad to delete information. I'm not interested in Ashlee Simpson but if I was, I would appreciate the existence of this article. If Wikipedia existed in the 60s, there would probably be musical elitists who voted to delete articles about "non-notable" Beatles songs, to use that popular example. Rhobite 19:20, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete articles about non-notable Beatles songs? I should hope so! An Octopus's Garden, for instance, probably does not encyclopedia entry of its own, although it should be mentioned in the Abbey Road entry and the Ringo Starr entry. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway Talk ]] 04:54, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • I was imagining a Wikipedia in the 60s where articles about Sinatra and Duke Ellington songs achieved featured status, but songs by the Beatles and the Stones were called "fancruft" and deleted for being non-notable. I think there is some genre elitism here. Rhobite 20:34, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
        • You are probably right that this would have happened, and I find that to be a good thing. At times, I think some individuals on Wikipedia lose sight of what exactly an encyclopedia is. An encyclopedia synthesizes information. It is a reference source that is based largely on secondary rather than primary sources and attepmts to provide a concise snapshot of the current state of scholarship on a subject. It is a place to record accepted fact that has been discovered through the research of multiple individuals and to provide some commentary on the most important debates in a field. An encyclopedia by its very definition is not supposed to keep up with every little thing that happens as it happens; this is the job of the press. A good encyclopedia article needs to place its subject in context, and that is impossible without a frame of reference. For some topics, that frame of reference can be established immediately or after a short period of reflection, but for something like a song, influence cannot be measured for years, or even decades, unless the song had some immediate impact such as topping a chart or breaking a sales record. Certain Beetles songs are important because they still resonate after forty years. This somg will probably be forgotten. I may be wrong, but only time will tell. Indrian 17:41, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • Definite keep. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 19:36, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: fancruft. Complete waste of resources. Wile E. Heresiarch 21:50, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. There are infinity pop music songs. Cut the ampliifier's power lead on it. Anthony Appleyard 21:55, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • For God's sake, people, it's her next single. It isn't like I just wrote an article on any random song from her album. It's very notable. Strong, strong keep, although I don't suppose anyone would expect me to vote otherwise. Everyking 22:55, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • And whole reason I created it was due to the fact that Autobiography (album) was too long, 32 KB, slightly more or less, so I had to breakout some content. Everyking 22:56, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • She's just a pop music singer. This is just one of her songs. We understand that you're a fan, and can write pages upon pages of essays about her and how she's really great. The problem is that while she's certainly notable enough for her own article, her albums are not notable, nor her songs or singles. Damnit Jim, we're an encyclopedia, not a geocities "Shrine to my favourite musician" site. --Improv 23:09, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • Her album reached #1 in North America on the Billboard Hot 200. That's one out of no more than 52 albums, theoretically, a year; probably more like a dozen or two. This is a single from it and the article for the album couldn't bear much more merged in specifically about the song. Samaritan 23:16, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC) (certainly not a "fan")
  • As I have been, I vote Merge and Redirect. Now that the main issue that lead to the creation of this article in the first place has been addressed (lack of space), the rest of the information could easily fit on the main article's page (one paragraph of it is already there, after all). Reene (リニ) 23:04, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - citation of external sources leads me to believe that the information is verifiable/reasonably notable. - RedWordSmith 23:08, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Reene, how was the lack of space resolved? Autobiography (album) still seems too large to accomodate the factual information about the song here. Otherwise count me to keep. Samaritan 23:16, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • A user is currently engaging in a revert war- it's possible the version you checked was an old one. The new one had plenty of space to accomodate the information. Reene (リニ) 23:23, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)
      • Good arguments are presented to merge, but I'm especially convinced to keep by Rhobite and RedWordSmith above and sannse, Johnleemk and Lifefeed below. (No change in vote.) Samaritan 00:06, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • How the hell did the album page get so long anyway? It's a fucking pop album! Even Sgt. Pepper needn't be as long as this (yes, I know it is, but it shouldn't be), and I assure you it is more notable in every way conceivable. If you can't fit the info in 32KB of space then you're saying too much about it. Just because you can say something doesn't mean you should. This is an encyclopedia, we don't need to know the word count of the liner notes or how much all the copies sold would weigh on Mars. This is not a fan site. We don't need to document every facet of the flavor of the week. -R. fiend 23:36, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - I see no reason to remove it, just as I would say for an article on some obscure species of flower or Japanese toilets - if someone wants to spend the time writing it then why not. -- sannse (talk) 23:28, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - not notable, if the album page is too long then edit the text to make it shorter. - Drstuey 01:22, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: Unfortunately, Everyking refuses to allow the deletion of one iota of his deathless prose. RickK 22:59, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Unlike a flower or a town, it's an artwork. Artworks, as the products of the human imagination, are limitless. We do not have space for all of them, as nothing does. This song may have a high dollar investment, but its notability will be measured in weeks rather than years or decades. Further, "La La" is such a common expression that I dislike a long, fannish article on this one song that omits "la la" as a scale note, "Lala" as a Teletubby, "LA LA" as a LosAngelino thing (in parody of "New York New York"). If this song succeeds in being memorable, in standing out among songs, in being notable within its type, then I would support an article on it. Geogre 01:26, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. The album (Autobiography (album) already has the most important information on the song, thus rendering the song´s individual page largely useless. I think that the length of a page should be proportionate to its relative cultural importance, I think this song is given its due share of text in the Autobiography page. --Handel 02:16, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)--
  • Delete or Merge and Trim. For God's sake, there are acres of red links in places like the Booker Prize, Pulitzer Prize, and even chunks of the Academy Awards listings, and a pop album released in JULY gets a huge +32KB entry of its own? And now someone wants pages for individual songs? Can't there be a WikiFanCruft site so obsessive fans compile every jot and tittle of their current Flavor of the Month? --Calton 03:25, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Millions of people own the album. It's a single from a very popular album by a very popular singer. That's pretty damn famous. Everyking 05:43, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • And millions of people will be selling them back to second-hand CD stores in a few years -- or more likely donating them to Salvation Army bins. The world is AWASH in popular albums and songs -- what makes this special? Awards? Cultural signifier? Landmark recording? Collaboration with the famous? Unusual history? --Calton 12:30, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Fame. Everyking 12:44, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • I look forward to your 48KB masterpiece on the seminal works of William Hung, who was, after all, famous.--Calton 11:33, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep it. —[[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 03:42, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Trim and merge and redirect to Autobiography (album). And I don't want to hear Everyking complaining that the album page is too long. Let's see here...why is it too long? Did we all go to sleep and wake up one morning to find a 32KB article had spawned itself? No. You made it too long. That's your problem. Plenty of stuff on both pages can be lost without doing any harm. "It's nice because, you know, "Pieces of Me" was, you know, an up and happy kind of song, and "Shadow" was more serious, and now I get to have fun and, you know, jump around and be crazy, so I feel like this song's probably the closest to my personality." Does crap like that really add anything to the article? Come on. That's the sort of empty statement people say because it sounds better than saying "I get paid alot to sing this song. Awesome!" At least the ungodly long article on A Day in the Life is interesting. -R. fiend 04:02, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
If you have problems with the Autobiography (album), then bring it up on the talk page: Talk:Autobiography (album). Quoting the article and calling it crap, is certainly not a good reason to trim/merge/redirect the vfd'ed article. Also, it is definitely not a civil act. Shard 06:35, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I've found myself infected by the deletionist notion that notability is a poor excuse for deletion. While I disagree most of the time, this is definitely notable. My neighbour's garage band is non-notable. This is notable. The subject is encyclopedic; the information directly relates to the topic of the article, while it only indirectly relates to the album. I can't find a single excuse beyond "this article could fit in the album article" that makes even an iota of sense. Johnleemk | Talk 07:34, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: I've done some more work on the article in my own namespace (since it's protected), at User:Everyking/La La, if anyone's interested. Here's the difference between the current protected article and my last revision. Everyking 08:59, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: Anybody interested in VFDing Shadow (song) as well? Johnleemk | Talk 09:52, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Go for it. I've haven't been here long enough to stick my neck out for that sort of trouble, but I'm sure putting a VFD tag will create HOURS of entertainment and megabytes of explanations as to why every word is deathless and sacred. Not that I have a POV on it, of course. --Calton 11:33, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. More interesting and relevant than the obscure and shortlived Dark Ages kings that never seem to get listed on VfD, despite their extreme non-notability. :-) Stan 15:00, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep songs are generally more notable than albums, if someone takes the time to write an article, it should be kept. Kappa 15:28, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's simply a very well done article, even if the topic is a bit obscure for a geek-oriented encyclopedia. - Lifefeed 17:35, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Andre (talk) 19:36, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge with album article and redirect. —tregoweth 19:48, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge with the album. Jeltz 20:38, 2004 Nov 28 (UTC)
  • Delete. I find it duplicitous that Everyking voted delete (against majority) on the countdowns of a famous radio station that is heard & voted on by millions of listeners every year: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/KROQ Top 106.7 Countdowns, while he wants to keep a single released by a pop singer. Rather 20:44, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge/redirect or delete - not a notable song. -Sean Curtin 23:29, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
    • How is that possible? A single from a highly successful album by a highly successful artist isn't notable? Everyking 23:39, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • No. Next question? --Calton 11:33, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • There are lots of highly successful artists whose individual singles are rather unmemorable. There is nothing much of interest to say about this song, and certainly nothing that isn't already said in the article on the album. However, we have articles on minor characters from Lord of the Rings that are entirely uninformative. The key, I think, is that beyond what Ashlee thinks of her song and what you think of her song, there is nothing at all to say. She might be remembered a hundred years from now, as a (very short) footnote, but her work, and this song in particular, will not. It is entirely ephemeral. Delete, because there is nothing to merge. Dr Zen 23:51, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • What about what all those critics I listed think? Certainly what I think of the song isn't mentioned in the article at all. Everyking 23:59, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • I look forward to the series of articles you will now write listing the critical opinion on every song ever released. Enjoy! Dr Zen 00:43, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Ranveig 00:14, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment. Since my vote always seems to be ignored I thought I would try to persuade people why this should be kept and not deleted,trimmed, or merged. It's very simple. This article is VERY interesting to the general public. Most of the people I know has heard of this single and I know it's going to be a one of Ashlee's biggest hits! I'll try an analogy to get you guys to see what this article means to us. Would any normal guy want to have his penis removed, trimmed, or mutilated? This article to us fans, is like a penis to a guy. It's very important and means a lot to us. I hope this convinces some of you to vote to keep. Thank you for reading this. Angel Tiger 00:25, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Angel Tiger, I do sympathise with you. If this was the Ashlee Simpson Fanclub site, your argument would be overwhelming. But you are right. The article is a load of cock. Dr Zen 00:43, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • I've heard of people like you, but I only thought they existed in ghost stories. You're probably the type that believed Ashlee actually lip synchs and that Lorne Michaels was telling the truth when he said on 60 Minutes that he never had a musical guest lip synch on SNL during their performance. I bet if it was up to you, the Ashlee Simpson article would be tainted with Lorne Michaels' lies about the incident. I'm glad to see that the article isn't and it will never contain those lies. You're a mean person and deserve terrible things to happen to you. If it was up to me, I would have voted to delete something precious to you, like your penis. *walks away to cool off* Angel Tiger 00:57, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • Angel Tiger, please bear in mind that some of the people are voting for or against this article have no idea who Ashlee Simpson and Lorne Michaels are, many of us don't watch MTV and some of us have never even watched SNL. The question then arises: what is notable about this single by Ashlee Simpson? What makes it as notable as, say, The Beatles' She Loves You, The Kinks' You Really Got Me, or Michael Jackson's Billy Jean? Maybe in ten years time many people will rank La La alongside those classic singles. But it was only released a few days ago and, as yet, as far as I can tell, it hasn't made any impression on the singles charts. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway Talk ]] 04:47, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Angel, Tiger, this song is nothing like my penis. I promise you I will not forget about my penis in two years' time. If this song were never written you would not miss it. Furthermore, yes, people do sometimes lip sync on SNL. Ashlee Simpson is one of them. That, however, has nothing to do with whether or not this article should be deleted. But I gotta tell you, the drama queen bit you pulled there was first class. Now I suggest you devote more of your time to the Ashlee fan sites and a bit less to wikipedia.-R. fiend 21:47, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Wait a minute: this song isn't even on the charts? Why are we even having this argument? --Calton 11:33, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm not sure exactly where we should draw the line on songs, but anything reviewed by Rolling Stone and Billboard and played on MTV certainly makes the cut. I guess I'd draw the line at any song which has enough information in respectable primary sources to make an article about it. Wikipedia is not paper, after all. anthony 警告 03:10, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Reviewed by Rolling Stone as a standard? Sweet Zombie Jesus, how albums and songs are reviewed every single issue?!?
      • I'm not sure, but the number is probably small enough that we can fit them all in Wikipedia. anthony 警告 14:47, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, songs are valid articles in and of themselves, no need to merge into an album. Merging into an album article isn't even always sensible anyway, as some songs appear on multiple albums. It's best to leave them as seperate articles in all cases for consistency. Shane King 03:57, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
    • Then why vote to delete the cover? Just so we're clear, why do you think a song makes a valid article in itself -- even one about which there is so little to say -- but the cover of the album does not? More thought probably went into the cover! Dr Zen 06:25, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete Has not yet had enough time to become a notable single. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway Talk ]] 04:47, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • In the first place, the simple fact that it's an Ashlee Simpson single should be sufficient, given her popularity and importance. Second, you want to delete this and recreate it later? Everyking 05:28, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Who is Ashlee Simpson? Why is it important to make an entry on one of her singles, which most people have not even heard yet, when you could be making an entry on, say, the Britney Spears single Oops...I Did It Again!, which is known to nearly everybody and reached number 9 in the Billboard Hot 100 for 2000? --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway Talk ]] 06:13, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • Why do I have to do it? I just wanted to write this article. Everyking 06:19, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
          • That isn't answering the question. This is an encyclopedia, not a fanzine. Why does the song La La merit an entry in an encyclopedia before it even hits the charts, when all time top sellers like the Britney single I mentioned, in the charts for weeks on end, get a line or two in the album entry? --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway Talk ]] 06:27, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
            • "Oops" should have an article. Don't blame me. I'll write a stub on it if you want me to, but I imagine that's about the best I can do. I know a lot more about this song than that one. Everyking 06:29, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
          • Don't bother, the song's chart success is recorded in the album entry. To answer your earlier question, yes if the single La La should ever become notable it would be very easy to create an entry and write whatever it is that was thought notable about the song in the new entry. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway Talk ]] 06:32, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
            • Well, if I was going to write an article on that song, there'd be a lot more info I'd like to add. Look at this article, or the one for Pieces of Me, for examples. I think La La is already notable, anyway. I wouldn't have written the article otherwise. Everyking 06:41, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
              • I'd like you to look at this, You Really Got Me. This song is notable because it stands out in its era as something new--the first single with power chords, the first with fuzz guitar, and it had obsessive lyrics and a slightly menacing delivery that were very new at the time. In my opinion these are the reasons why it merits an entry in an encyclopedia; it is a pivotal song in the development of rock music. It gets seven short paragraphs that outline these reasons very well. I have read the Pieces of Me article, but I cannot find anything notable about the song. It's "an upbeat blend of pop and rock with lyrics about finding comfort and happiness in a relationship with a new boyfriend," and was (unsurprisingly) inspired by the singer's new relationship at the time of writing. Then there's a huge morass of stuff that can only be of any possible interest to a few fans. But nothing in the article tells me why this is a notable song. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway Talk ]] 08:15, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
                • What about the part about going to number 1 on the top 40 and number 5 on the Hot 100? What about being the first single from an album that debuted at number 1? How in the world can that not seem notable to you? Everyking 08:22, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
                • Every week a new top 40 is compiled, and every week there is a number 1 and a number 5. That alone doesn't make a song notable. As for being "the first single from an album that debuted at number 1", that is incorrect. But I'd like you to read and try to understand why The Kinks single I cited above is notable. I didn't mention that it spent two weeks at number one in the charts because that is not what made it worthy of an encyclopedia entry. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway Talk ]] 08:35, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
                  • Famous things are automatically notable. Sometimes there are things that aren't famous but are still notable for some reason or another. But a famous hit song cannot be non-notable. No offense, but that's radically deletionist logic. Everyking 08:40, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
                    • I don't buy the "famous things are automatically notable" argument. The guys who appeared in every single Big Brother, Who Wants to be a Millionnaire or whatever are "famous" by virtue of being on television and being gossiped about in the newspapers. This does not make them notable. In that sense, you're right to call me a deletionist, and I don't see what's wrong with excluding such things from an encyclopedia. Death to cruft. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway Talk ]] 12:30, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
                    • People actually use Wikipedia for information, you know. People should be able to find information on famous topics without waiting 30 years until Tony deems it fit for an entry. And the article on You Really Got Me you point to is not nearly comprehensive, especially considering its importance. Why don't you try to expand it? I've done my best with these articles, and I intend to continue working, if you'll please refrain from trying to get my work deleted. Everyking 14:52, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
                      • I will not go out of my way to propose any of your articles for deletion. I think your work is good, and you obviously care about what you're doing; I just don't think Wikipedia is the right place. The Kinks article could probably do with a tweak or two, I agree. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway Talk ]] 15:28, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
                      • We're an encyclopedia. It is our charter to write encyclopedic articles on encyclopedic topics. This is not encyclopedic. If you want to establish a fansite elsewhere, or maybe even a database of pop trivia, nobody's stopping you. I think we should be selective on Wikipedia though, staying within the general bounds of encyclopedic topics/content. Again -- it's clear that this musician means a lot to you, but try not to let that cloud your judgement and let you think that everything she does is earth shattering. Oy, I'm glad you haven't (yet) taken to writing articles about every concert she holds. --Improv 15:12, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
                      • Improv, I note that you said above even the album itself should not have an article. Surely you realize such radical deletionism strongly at odds with what most Wikipedians want the project to be. Lord knows I should count myself lucky that the articles on Dark Ages kings I've written haven't been VfDed, as Stan jested above. Everyking 15:19, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
                        • Nonsense. I'm often recognized as being a moderate, rather than radical, deletionist. Look at my VfD contributions -- for a deletionist, I vote keep fairly often. It all comes down to types of things that I feel are encyclopedic, and things that I don't. Dark Age kings are quite encyclopedic, and if they were VfD'd, you can bet I'd be voting keep. I think, however, that there's quite a difference between the notability of a monarch and that of a single song or album a pop musician popped off. Incorporating into Wikipedia ten pages on every king that ever reigned would make Wikipedia a lot better. Incorporating into Wikipedia ten pages on every pop song/album ever written would make Wikipedia a lot worse. My approach to "what belongs in an encyclopedia" is not "any random thing", any more than my approach to "what belongs in a sandwich" is "whatever I see lying around". Making a good encyclopedia is much like making a sandwich (although the ingredients should differ *wink*) --Improv 17:57, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
                  • And of course it's correct, Autobiography did debut at number one, I promise, and Pieces was its first single. Everyking 08:42, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
                    • I don't doubt that the album debuted at number one. I misunderstood what you were saying--I thought you meant that this was the first time a single from an album had gone straight to number one in the charts (which wouldn't be a first, by a long chalk). Now I see what you're saying, but this is pretty thin stuff, definitely not a valid reason to give the single an entry of its own separate from the album. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway Talk ]] 12:30, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Slightly POV article, but one worth keeping nonetheless. Ambi 07:14, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Can you explain what's POV about it, so I can fix it? Everyking 07:20, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Obvious keep. Pcb21| Pete 13:00, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Just once, I'd like someone to explain what makes this an "obvious keep" without saying "But she's famous!" Reene (リニ) 18:35, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
      • Dude, as you state yourself on your user page, your constructive contributions have been few. Your talk page shows a litany of arguments with respected contributors. I suggest you go and learn how researching and writing articles can be more fun than trying to get other people's work deleted just because you are not a fan of the subject matter. The article clearly, obviously, meets the required standards of verfiability and factuality. Notability is not even a "official" reason for deletion, although we do it anyway sometimes - this is not one of those times as clearly this article will hold interest for a lot of people. Pcb21| Pete 20:13, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • Where, exactly, does my user page say that? It's got outdated lists of articles I have created and "projects" (which does NOT translate to "any article I've ever contributed to") but that certainly doesn't mean my contributions have been "few". Most of the comments on my talk page are, for the most part, stemming from one incident involving an article being on VfD that was used as a means of attacking other users (long story, so I won't go into it) not to mention most of them have either been cleared up or just plain forgotten about. I suggest you stop making broad, sweeping assumptions based on half-assed "research" into my contributions as a user (did you even look at my contributions list?). Also...I asked why it was "obviously" a keeper. Notice that I've voted to merge all of the information on the article rather than simply delete it. Just because something may interest a large group of people (mainly fans) doesn't mean it deserves its own lengthy article. Reene (リニ) 20:33, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
          • Your user page says "Articles I've created .. [list of four items].. Yeah, I know it's not much, but it's better than nothing."
          • Of course I looked over your contributions page, and I stand by what I wrote.
          • Re : "Just because something may interest a large group of people (mainly fans) doesn't mean it deserves its own lengthy article." This a ridiculous point of view to have when contributing to Wikipedia. If someone contributes something that is factual, verfiable and (more recently) notable then it has its place in Wikipedia. These are the elements that make something encyclopedic. Having deeper coverage on a particular topic than on another topic is emphatically not a problem. It is physically possible to ignore a page you are not personally interested in, you know. Pcb21| Pete 22:02, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
            • I suppose you missed the part where I said the list was grossly outdated and in no way reflected my actual contributions or the number of articles I routinely work on. Also, the information on this article deserves a place on Wikipedia: The article itself does not. There is a huge difference. Please don't push me blindly into the deletionist group just because you don't like/understand my position. Reene (リニ) 22:09, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable, and sets a terrible precedent; in a world where people are murdered unremarkedly and unavenged each year, Wikipedia does not need to be filled with reams and reams of pop trivia. If an outsider stumbled upon this discussion he would be shocked at our triviality. This whole affair nonetheless remains a fascinating 'test case', and I half suspect that Everyking is aware of this; should Wikipedia reflect current interest in a topic, or a hypothetical, projected future interest? Should it reflect the quality of interest in a topic? The articles about US election fraud / Haliburton / 'All Your Base' etc will also be unread and unremarked in thirty years, but they are currently fascinating and clearly significant; Ashlee Simpson is neither fascinating nor significant, but she is popular and well-known. I nonetheless believe in my heart of hearts that my American namesake will not merit an entry in any newspaper or media outlet anywhere when she dies of old age, but who am I to loft myself above 'the mass'? - Ashley Pomeroy 23:09, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • (on triviality) An utterly, utterly bogus argument. Outsiders review Wikipedia all the time. They have never once been shocked at our triviality. On the contrary, they have been impressed by our breadth. You are of course free to write about murder cases if you wish. THat you haven't done so is no reason to hack down Everyking's work.
    • Have you any done any actual historical research? Historians LOVE finding out what was important to people at they time they lived. We should not try to second guess them, because we will be wrong. Pcb21| Pete 23:18, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • (and with regards Livy below) Absolutely true; but Ashlee Simpson is already immortalised with plenty enough detail elsewhere on the internet and in the physical world. Her compact discs will remain intact for hundreds of years, long after we are all dead. - Ashley Pomeroy 11:22, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • I thought compact discs couldn't last nearly that long. But I guess that's beside the point. Everyking 11:28, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • The precedent was established a long time ago, as far as I know. Note also that I support the inclusion of articles on all famous murder victims, on anything that is or ever was at one time famous, in fact. I honestly did not really expect anybody to have a problem with the existence of this article, and I say that as someone who has been a participant on VfD for a long time. I imagine if I'd known there'd be any opposition I'd have been a lot less enthusiastic about going to the trouble of writing it. Pete above also makes an excellent point regarding the significance of such elements of human culture to future historians. Everyking 23:26, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • There's a great passage in Livy where he mentions that all the people sang a song on a certain occasion, but he didn't repeat the words because he thought the song was primitive and inelegant - in other words, it would have been an exceedingly rare sample of the most ancient Latin language, and classical scholars would give their left pinkies to know what those words were. The science of linguistics being nearly two millennia in the future, Livy had no way of knowing the significance of what he was leaving out. Stan 23:37, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Abstain. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 01:36, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge This doesn't need to have it's own page. And someone really needs to add in some of the negative reviews for the album and song. Such as Rolling stone saying ""Nobody's really seen my million subtleties," she says on the title track. This album doesn't change that." sunbird 04:35, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • For the song, I noted that Rolling Stone called it creepy. For the album, I noted that Rolling Stone called it predictable and mundane. Surely you don't want any more detail than that? Everyking 05:19, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • as far as I'm concerned, for really bad albums the only positive is the wonderfully negative reviews they get. (This is true of negative reviews for anything. I'll never forget watching a car review on top gear where they described the new BMW as like driving with hot coffee spilt in your lap) I haven't heard any of Ashlee's songs, but by reading that review it still seemed somehow...familiar. Really though, merge it. If the article is long, then an editor will come along and trim out the excess. If it's long and good, they'll leave it alone. As the line says, the line that is below us every time we type something and submit it to the greater good If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it. Peace outsunbird 05:32, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • "If the article is long, then an editor will come along and trim out the excess." Good in theory, currently next to impossible in practice. Everyking has reverted every single edit made to the article that wasn't by him. I would encourage looking at (and commenting on, by all means) the talk page of the article in question. Reene (リニ) 05:36, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
          • Nonsense. There have only been a handful of edits to the article that didn't delete mass quantities of information, but I've never reverted those. In practice, the article has been trimmed; I trimmed it considerably before you even came along, when it was on FAC, and then I trimmed it a bit more in a failed attempt to pacify you. Everyking 06:02, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
            • I dispute this. Many of Renee's edits did not delete mass quantities of information, they suitably summarised them. And the amount of trimming that you have done or allowed to be done has been a needle in a haystack. - Drstuey 01:14, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • If anyone remains unconvinced of how POV using the notability mumbo jumbo on this particular article is, try the articles Back in the U.S.S.R. and America (song). The first is an album track that only came out as a single 8 years after its initial release. The second, I'm not sure. But what I'm sure about is that if somehow only the Beatles or Simon and Garfunkel or "notable musicians" should get articles about their songs, then the POV is blatantly obvious. If you must, at least set something objective, for Jebus' sake!
    • I respectfully suggest if you took the time to listen to those two songs you might realise why they are encyclopedia material. Whether they were ever released as singles or achieved any chart position as singles is immaterial. They are great songs. It's too early yet for us to know whether La La is a great song. This is about as objective as the very subjective field of music appreciation gets. Those two songs still sound great nearly forty years after they were recorded. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway Talk ]] 02:21, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Even so, I now understand the outcry inclusionists have raised on the mailing list about "notability". In my day, "non-notable" was someone's garage band or my dirty socks or the rotten cheese Joe Bloggs accidentally ate. Now "non-notable" is apparently a song released by an artist whose album has debuted at number one. Sheesh. And FWIW, I hate most modern pop music, so I'm not a fan of it by any standard. This song sounds like another one I'd hate, but my point is that Wikipedia is not paper; we can afford to keep this as a separate article. At least the people voting merge have a shred of common sense (although I still don't understand why they voted that way; Wikipedia isn't paper, so we can afford a separate entry for the song. The article isn't even a stub, so I can't understand their position). Those voting delete almost certainly haven't considered the issue very much. Johnleemk | Talk 08:27, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Well, if you really wish to know my POV on the matter, I would suggest taking a look at the AMW (and the entry on Mergism). Reene (リニ) 08:40, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
    • The existence of those articles doesn't guarantee they belong in Wikipedia. Rather 08:51, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • "Those voting delete almost certainly haven't considered the issue very much." -Might I again respectfully suggest that you reconsider that remark? The album is recent, there's really no way of knowing whether this song is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia (rather than, say, a magazine, or a newspaper, or a book about pop music). Perhaps we should have a moratorium on inclusion of such things to avoid being deluged in trivia. No songs first released to the general public less than two years (twenty-four months) ago should do it. Otherwise we risk turning into a fanzine. Already there are thousands of entries on mangas and roleplay games whose authors will probably have forgotten them in six months time in the mad dash to move onto the next craze. Encyclopedias are different. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway Talk ]] 02:21, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Well, by voting to delete you are voting to remove this information from Wikipedia entirely. At least the mergists propose to merge the information with the album article. Johnleemk | Talk 11:26, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • In the circumstances I don't think a merge would be appropriate. That single song already has two paragraphs, about 240 words in all, in the Autobiography (album) entry. This seems reasonable, although I'm sure if more energy were spent on editing this entry to an acceptable standard the piece on La La could be reduced to 100 words or thereabouts. There is a lot of padding in the Ashlee Simpson entries, and the La La paragraphs of Autograph are no exception. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 11:49, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep This is my favorite song from her album. Please don't take it away. It's quite famous. Stefani 09:37, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Please log in before voting. --Improv 09:18, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Sorry about that. It's been awhile since I last visited the site. Stefani 09:37, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • What the... ? Keep. chocolateboy 10:14, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Trivial as the subject may be, maybe even sub-trivial at present, the article itself is well-researched, well-written and completely encyclopedic. Given the recent "Saturday Night Live" fiasco, it's also timely. Keep. - Lucky 6.9 17:24, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Wikipedia is not paper. Song will soon be heard a billion times a day for the next six months. Its certainly more notable than this.Chuck 22:14, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • The inclusion of some non-notable material does not justify the inclusion of more non-notable material. Isomorphic 23:34, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a music review or fansite. Very few individual songs are important enough to qualify as encyclopedic. This is not one of them. Isomorphic 23:33, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Songs by notable artists are encyclopedic. That said, I would not vote to keep "Foo is a song by Bar", with very little other content. But if there is sufficient content in a song article, and the artist and album are themselves notable, I see no reason to delete. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 23:37, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • DELETE. This is preposterous! Just because a song exists does not make it worthy of encyclopedic documentation. This whole "Wikipedia is not paper" argument becomes tiresome...REALLY. Just because something CAN be unlimited doesn't mean it SHOULD be. With all the space in the world Wikipedia is still meant as a database of encyclopedic knowledge about things of note. If someone comes to Wikipedia because they want to know about this "La La" song, they should be redirected to the artist page where a note about the song can be made. The song is irrelevant and forgettable outside of the context of the artist's body of work. Pacian 01:37, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. If this song is still remembered by anybody after 30 - 40 years (like some of the songs by the Beatles, for instance), I'll change my vote to keep. ;-) Heck, I'll even be surprised if anybody remembers this song in a year's time. I dunno, maybe there should be a "cooling off period" of a year or so for articles regarding popular culture in order to ensure that Wikipedia isn't deluged by such articles. Wikipedia is an ENCYCLOPEDIA. P.S.: Ashlee Simpson is a complete unknown to the majority of people on this good earth, her songs are even more non-notable. If I've ever seen a case of systemic bias, this is it. Elf-friend 08:23, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Systemic bias? I support articles on notable songs by famous singers in all countries. Wikipedia couldn't do better than to have a deluge of quality articles on cultural subjects. Tell you what, I promise to remember the song in 30 years, if I'm still breathing, if in return you'll change your vote. Everyking 10:22, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Well, please show your support for the campaign against systemic bias by writing an article about the Culture of Turkmenistan, for instance. ;-) Elf-friend 11:20, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • Why do you want me to do that when you want the article on this cultural subject deleted? Is that reverse systemic bias or something? Everyking 11:33, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, there is no valid reason for deletion. Ashlee Simpson is a celebrity, therefore deserving of an article on Wikipedia. -- Crevaner 10:38, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • This vote is not regarding an article about Ashlee Simpson, its about one of her songs. Elf-friend 11:20, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I do not think every art song by Schubert deserves a page, let alone songs that will probably be forgotten in a few decades. Indrian 17:45, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

Rossami's Analysis[edit]

This discussion thread has become very long and extremely difficult to sort out. In an effort to assist the admin who must eventually make this decision, I propose the use of a recap table. In addition to your vote and explanation below, please record your name in the table. Comment: For this to work, please keep all comments below. I've taken my best guess at the current opinions of the discussion participants. If I've listed anyone's vote incorrectly, please move it. Rossami (talk) 01:22, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for this. Excellent work! --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway Talk ]] 02:28, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Keep votes  
  1. Smerdis of Tlön
  2. Rhobite
  3. Blankfaze
  4. Everyking
  5. RedWordSmith
  6. Samaritan
  7. sannse
  8. Radman1
  9. Johnleemk
  10. Stan Shebs
  11. Kappa
  12. Lifefeed
  13. Andrevan
  14. Ranveig
  15. Angel Tiger
  16. anthony
  17. Shane King
  18. Ambi
  19. Pcb21|
  20. Shard
  21. Stefani
  22. chocolateboy
  23. Lucky 6.9
  24. Chuck
  25. Meelar
  26. Tuf-Kat
  27. SlimVirgin
  28. Intrigue 23:06, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Merge & Redirect
  1. Reene
  2. R. fiend
  3. Tregoweth
  4. Jeltz
  5. Sean Curtin
  6. Sabine's Sunbird
  1. Improv
  2. Dr Zen
  3. David Johnson
  4. Wile E. Heresiarch
  5. Anthony Appleyard
  6. Drstuey
  7. Geogre
  8. Handel
  9. Calton
  10. Rather
  11. Tony Sidaway
  12. Ashley Pomeroy
  13. Isomorphic
  14. Pacian
  15. Elf-friend
  16. Indrian
Abstain/ambiguous vote
  1. RickK
  2. Neutrality


I notice that some moron is going round spamming talk pages (using the sock puppet name ".:." - see contribs) asking for this article to be deleted. Dude, whoever you are, you are wasting your time. With so many people wanting this material in Wikipedia it is rightly not going to be deleted. Pcb21| Pete 22:08, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I totally agree. Pete is right, those people are idiots to follow the sockpuppet's direct orders to vote delete. The importance of this article to Ashlee fans, is exactly the same as a guy with his penis. So, if you followed the sockpuppet's direct orders to vote delete, please reconsider. Angel Tiger 22:36, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm all for Wikilove, but that has to be the dumbest analogy I've ever read in my six months at Wikipedia. Mike H 22:44, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
You must not have read the thing about the iguana, then. Everyking 22:53, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
You should read the rest of it. As an aside, this likely goes without saying but Angel Tiger's vote should not be counted, as her only edits have been to her own user page, the talk page of another user, and to VfD entries [1]. Accusations of sock puppetry from this person are humourous at best. -- Reene (リニ) 22:56, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
As another aside, I think it says a lot about a user when he or she makes fun of another user on his or her user page. Everyking 23:04, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
And as yet another aside, I think it says a lot about a user when they go out of their way to mock/insult someone on their personal journal under an imperfect veil of anonymity. At least I have the proverbial balls to stand up and account for my actions. This is something you cannot say for yourself. Reene (リニ) 23:15, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
Ha, well, I suppose so, Reene. As hopefully a final aside, I think it says a lot about a user when he or she writes trash about another user outside of Wikipedia and and then has the gall to complain when said user responds in an unfriendly manner. Everyking 23:18, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Would that "trash" happen to be me rehashing everything I've already said to you in public (such as accusing you of being a fanboy, being biased, being as immovable as a brick wall, etc)? My point still stands. And you chose not to identify yourself even after I'd asked you to. Too bad I had that pesky IP logging feature enabled eh?
In any case, this is not the medium to be carrying on this dispute, especially considering the fact that a mediator has agreed to work on things so we can come to a fair consensus. So how about we both drop it, mm? Reene (リニ) 23:31, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
Well, if you put it that way, yeah, I suppose you have been awfully uncivil here on Wikipedia as well. Not quite as emphatic or profane, but more or less, yeah, you're right. OK, we'll drop it, then. Everyking 23:40, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Everyking, Reene — you two seem reasonably intelligent, but you're acting like grade-schoolers here, with this ridiculous quarrel, and the tiff on LiveJournal of all places? Come on, can you be more sterotypically highschool? BLANKFAZE | (что??) 03:42, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
You're right, it's absoloutely stupid that it even got to that in the first place. However, I'm not aware of any "tiff on Livejournal" beyond the anonymous posts made to my own. Is that what you meant? It seems to be since that is what you are linking to. If that is the case, I needn't defend myself, since I fail to see what is "stereotypically high school" about owning a livejournal (most of the people I know that use livejournal are far past the stage of high school, after all). Reene (リニ) 04:00, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
The importance of this article to Ashlee fans, is exactly the same as a guy with his penis.
See list of purported cults. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 04:04, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.