Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shadow (song)
Another Ashlee Simpson song. Normally I would suggest merging with Autobiography, but both articles are already bloated, and Everyking reacts badly to major changes to Ashlee-related articles. —tregoweth 18:42, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. There was too much material in the original article, so Everyking acted perfectly appropriately and split this off into a separate article. If you've got enough time to complain about too much good material, there's a whole list of articles that need to be moved over at cleanup. Meelar (talk) 18:53, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)
- The Ashlee Simpson articles have too much material, period. —tregoweth 19:01, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)
- Huh? We kept La La, didn't we? By a majority, in fact. Isn't that enough of a precedent? Well, anyway, keep, of course. Everyking 18:57, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep especially since La La was kept and no-one has explained how this is different. Kappa 19:13, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, this hasn't failed any of the deletion criteria. And if I remember correctly these song articles were seperated from Autobiography due to the bloated nature of that article. Rje 01:34, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Given the lack of consensus to delete La La, this should not have been listed. There is not too much good material in the Autobiography article though. There's too much bloat, verging on nonsense, which no one can edit.Dr Zen 01:36, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Precedents mean nothing. The fact that Autobiography is bloated is no excuse for yet more cruft. Waterloo Sunset deserves an article, we cannot know whether Shadow does or not. If we wait five years or so before adding articles like this, the quality will go up immeasurably. If we delete this, Everyking will just have to learn to edit.--Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:43, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. I don't have anything insightful to say. Tuf-Kat 01:47, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Songs are fine. Rhobite 05:02, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep.--JuntungWu 08:19, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Bring it back in 2014, let's say. -Ashley Pomeroy 11:43, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Why don't you argue for deleting the article on the Indian Ocean earthquake and bringing that back in ten years, too? If something is current, people are going to want to know about it. Interest will naturally tend to decline as time passes. Everyking 13:20, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- The Indian Ocean earthquake is intrinsically significant. Decline of general public interest in it will not alter that. We don't know whether Shadow is also significant until public interest has had time to decline and we can assess its significance accurately. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:24, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- If the song is famous, it's significant. That's all there is to it. Everyking 13:40, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I have never heard the song. Nobody I spoke to today had heard the song. You say it's famous? I say: not very! --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:47, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- The Indian Ocean earthquake has killed or disrupted the lives of millions of people. Shadow is another Ashlee Simpson song. Get the difference? --BM 13:37, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Yeah, I get the difference. But I think you missed my point. The point was that you don't go deleting things at the time when people are most likely to want the information, only to promise to restore the info at some later point when fewer people will want it. Everyking 13:40, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- On the contrary,now is the best time to get rid of it, when information on it is available universally. Should anybody atill remember the song in two years' time and want to write about it, then will be the time to recreate the article. I think we should adopt this as a matter of policy--no articles on popular culture until twenty-four months after the official release date. In the meantime, pop it on Musicwiki. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:23, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. There are articles on all kinds of songs on Wikipedia, why is this one less deserving? Bryan 16:18, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. chocolateboy 18:31, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. I don't know the background of this whole Ashlee Simpson article controversy, but I really do not see any problems here. -Ld | talk 18:35, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Merge and Delete. --fvw* 19:35, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)
- Keep. Norman Rogers\talk 21:42, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. I've heard of it and I hate modern pop music with a passion. VfD is unwarrented and may be a spillover from the main article. hfool 22:25, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep - this nomination is a thorough violation of the Wikipedia:deletion policy and should be removed - David Gerard 23:07, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- How can a nomination be a violation of the policy? Would you have preferred these matters to be settled by one bunch of bozoes slapping a merge in and another bunch erasing the merge? Far better have the rationale for this, to some, quite inexplicably trivial article discussed openly. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:20, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Because you're only supposed to nominate stuff with a reason that's actually on Wikipedia:Deletion policy. See the top of WP:VFD - David Gerard 09:38, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I have read it and find no support for your claim. Any article can be listed on VfD. One of the good reasons to list an article is that one believes that it is not, and has no potential to becom, encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. Just because somebody released a single or produced a trading card with a picture of a monster on it a produced an episode of a situation comedy, does not mean that the song or the card or the television program episode merits an individual article in an encyclopedia. These things should be discussed to decide which things should be kept, which should be merged, which belong on another wiki, and so on. This is why we have VfD. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:23, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- At the bottom of WP:VFD: Under the section, describe, in accordance with our deletion policy, why the page should be deleted. It's a hit song, even if it's a shit song - David Gerard 22:14, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Not being encyclopedic is a reason for deletion. I'm not saying it's a shit song--I've never heard it. It may be a great song, but unless it's up there with Tamborine Man or Happy Birthday or Good Vibrations or Teenage Spirit I don't see much point in keeping it. We don't yet know whether it is or not (time will tell). For now, it's a hit song, but there are hundreds of hit songs every year. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:03, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Damn if you ain't right, Tony. Looks like we've got a lot of work ahead of us—hundreds of articles to write! I say we alternate tasks between us. Since I've already written an article on "Shadow", I assign you responsibility for writing an article on Usher's "Yeah!", and then you can pick one for me next. Everyking 00:15, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I have read it and find no support for your claim. Any article can be listed on VfD. One of the good reasons to list an article is that one believes that it is not, and has no potential to becom, encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. Just because somebody released a single or produced a trading card with a picture of a monster on it a produced an episode of a situation comedy, does not mean that the song or the card or the television program episode merits an individual article in an encyclopedia. These things should be discussed to decide which things should be kept, which should be merged, which belong on another wiki, and so on. This is why we have VfD. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:23, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Because you're only supposed to nominate stuff with a reason that's actually on Wikipedia:Deletion policy. See the top of WP:VFD - David Gerard 09:38, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- How can a nomination be a violation of the policy? Would you have preferred these matters to be settled by one bunch of bozoes slapping a merge in and another bunch erasing the merge? Far better have the rationale for this, to some, quite inexplicably trivial article discussed openly. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:20, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Intrigue 00:26, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep I think its comendable that its that long. Praise be to the writers Gkhan 02:38, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, great article. bbx 04:27, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Elf-friend 12:39, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable. Megan1967 23:18, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Given the foregoing discussion, would you mind indicating which part of the deletion policy says that not being "notable" is a criterion for deletion?Dr Zen 23:46, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- "Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base", just because it exists does not mean that it should be grounds for inclusion in Wikipedia. See point 7 Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. The song itself never even reached the Top 10, it had little impact outside of Simpson fans, it did not change the face of music history, the article does not mention any external grounds for notability, therefore it is imo not notable. Megan1967 23:51, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Given the foregoing discussion, would you mind indicating which part of the deletion policy says that not being "notable" is a criterion for deletion?Dr Zen 23:46, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete The entry was well done, but I do not believe it belongs in an encyclopedia entry. Why not condense the article and add it to Simpson's page, or delete it all together?--CiaraBeth 01:00, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Far more detail than I personally would put into one Ashlee Simpson song. But it's a good article for what it is, and while it's not a core subject I see no reason to take it out; I'd suggest merging if it were shorter, but not deleting in any case. Mindspillage | spill your mind? 22:26, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)