Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pieces of Me

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pieces of Me[edit]

Pieces of Me 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 keep.

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 19:01, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)

  • This song was a big hit. An absurd listing. Of course keep. Considering the fact that La La was kept by a majority before, this is rather outrageous. Everyking 19:10, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. What deletion criterion is this supposed to have met? Xezbeth 19:14, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable song. Megan1967 00:06, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm not a fan but both she and the song are somewhat notable, I've heard of them, and this article does not appear to have violated any deletion policy. Normally I would probably say merge, but I don't think it's appropriate considering both the size of the articles involved and the needless ruckus that will ensue. Rje 01:31, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Given the lack of consensus to delete La La, Everyking can now write enormous articles on Ashlee's farts and burps and we'll be keeping them too.Dr Zen 01:37, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. And learn to write such articles themselves, instead of swarms of stubs. Mikkalai 04:08, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Songs are fine. Rhobite 05:02, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. --JuntungWu 08:16, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete for the sake of consistency. -Ashley Pomeroy 11:45, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Consistency with what? Deletion would be inconsistent with precedent and with the general understanding of what sort of topics Wikipedia should include. Everyking 13:23, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Weak keep I'd only accept an article on a song if it made number one in at least one major market, or was particularly notable otherwise (if not, it should be merged with the album). This just about makes it, but I'd have to say the sheer length of the article suggests someone being a little over involved in creating this - good editing may be required to make it a good article for wider interest rather than just Ms Simpson's more obsessive fans. If not kept, merge a well edited version with the album. Average Earthman 17:31, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. chocolateboy 18:27, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Unenthusiastic Keep. Celebrity fancruft, and should probably be deleted, but no policy covers it. Auto movil 18:53, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, see above. -Ld | talk 18:38, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I want to add, also, that these articles are very well written, to the degree that they're better than most commercial celebrity PR. If there were an Ashlee Simpson magazine, these articles could appear in it unaltered. The issue is that they're uncritical fan articles, on topics that are becoming minutely small. It wouldn't be a pleasure to delete them, and I'd mourn their splendor as I pulled the delete-handle. Auto movil 19:00, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and Delete --fvw* 19:35, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)
  • Keep. Norman Rogers\talk 21:41, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Even more notable than Shadow (song). hfool 22:27, 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)
  • Keep. Intrigue 00:26, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep it. —RaD Man (talk) 02:04, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep this lovely article. bbx 04:25, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Would fit well on a new (non-Wikipedia) project called MusicWiki. Let's have a rule: no popular culture until at least twenty-four months after release. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:17, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • You know, one of the advantages of Wikipedia over a standard encyclopedia is that we can cover current topics. Everyking 14:10, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agree with Tony. Elf-friend 12:41, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Everyking: They're lapidarily-written articles on topics that are extremely ephemeral and celebrity-based. I wish they were on something besides a teeny-pop artist's latest PR maneuverings. I wish they were somewhat critical, including the same information, but they're in a context such that every year, for over fifty years, such meowings (pardon me) have been 'important news,' for the month they've been relevant, and then have been supplanted by other meowing. For fifty years. Ashlee Simpson -- Even if I thought she were important, I wouldn't support articles based on individual contemporary teen-pop songs. Auto movil 19:38, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep this and other Ashlee Simpson songs. Ephemeral and celebrity-based? Yes. But these are not criteria for deletion. Meelar (talk) 21:55, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, and I say this as someone who is very devoted to Wikipedia's music articles and a big fan of music, in spite of thinking Simpson is a talentless hack and this song a supreme example of that. This article's existence makes Wikipedia better. I agree it should be trimmed, as should the album, but deletion is unwarranted. Tuf-Kat 21:56, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. Fancruft. A song about a 15-minutes-of-fame celebrity girl's boyfriend isn't notable. The highest debut it got anywhere was #3, which hardly makes it worthy of inclusion since many other songs throughout music history have had that same distinction. --Idont Havaname 23:26, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Sorry, part of my comment wasn't accurate, but I still don't think that this song affected history enough to be worth a keep, at least for now. --Idont Havaname 23:30, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, I don't see any reason to delete this. Dbenbenn 18:48, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Well-written, well-documented, totally NPOV and should be held up as a textbook example of what Wikipedia is all about. I agree that her musical talent is questionable and her fame probably fleeting, but those are no reasons I can see to delete this. A lot of time, effort and research went into this article. It's darn near featured quality IMO. Beats the living daylights out of the vanity articles and nanostubs that bombard the site every day. - Lucky 6.9 19:27, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. As in the above vote, I'd suggest merging if it were shorter, but not deleting, thus keep. Mindspillage | spill your mind? 22:28, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Spam Masterhomer 01:37, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I have to hear this inane song on the radio every day, but I'll defend it here. --Ryan! | Talk 11:18, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. There is no point in the senseless deletion of this article. GRider\talk 18:11, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. The song was a big enough hit. LostCluster 02:41, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, 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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pieces_of_Me&oldid=1138231282"