Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Autobiography sales and chart positions/Archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was - kept

Autobiography sales and chart positions

[edit]

It's not every day that a debut album enters the charts at number 1. I think that this level of detail about a single album may be unnecessary, however. I submit it to the scrutiny of Votes for deletion. I abstain on the issue (do not count my opinion as a vote) although it is my provisional opinion that this article is not encyclopedic and does not have the potential to become a useful encyclopedia article in its own right. Essentially it seems to be an overspill article produced in lieu of proper editing and condensation. I may be wrong and therefore I will follow the debate with interest although I will not participate. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:20, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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. Johnleemk | Talk<
Keep votes  
Keep
  1. Everyking
  2. violet/riga
  3. Ld
  4. Mgm
  5. Yuckfoo
  6. JRM
  7. DV
  8. Tuf-Kat
  9. Angel Tiger
  10. chocolateboy
  11. Bryan
  12. Btljs
  13. ElBenevolente
  14. David Gerard
  15. Golbez
  16. Ground
  17. Gkhan
  18. Meelar
  19. Neutrality
  20. GRider
 Merge
  1. Niteowlneils
  2. Johnleemk
  3. Improv
  4. Lectonar
  5. Rossami
  6. SimonP 20:31, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
 Delete
  1. iMeowbot
  2. Ashley Pomeroy
  3. R. fiend
  4. Geogre
  5. Niteowlneils
  6. Wyss
  7. Gamaliel
  8. Rhobite
  9. Mikkalai
  10. Johnleemk
  11. Andre Engels
  12. hfool
  13. Blankfaze
  14. Dr Zen
  15. Wile E. Heresiarch
  16. tregoweth
  17. Rather
  18. Improv
  19. Edeans
  20. Walt Pohl
  21. Elf-friend
  22. Megan1967
  23. Rossami
 Abstain or Ambiguous vote
  • Keep. Contains a great deal of factual, notable information; was created as a response to the considerable size of Autobiography (album), which was nearing 50KB and had been the focus of a rather heated dispute. We should not be in the business of "condensing" notable information unless we are moving that information to a subarticle per summary style. Everyking 15:24, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - not a fan but there obviously are quite and few and to remove all this would be wrong. violet/riga (t) 15:29, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge it back into Autobiography (album) for now, at least until the core editing dispute is resolved. iMeowbot~Mw 18:02, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Changing to Keep, because apparently merging isn't going to be an option. iMeowbot~Mw 23:37, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • And finally (for real this time), make that Delete. The editing dispute doesn't appear to be reconcilable, and that removes the likelihood that this can become a worthwhile article. iMeowbot~Mw 17:23, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • But this article is intended to help resolve the dispute... Everyking 18:06, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Understood, but splitting off that material leaves (in my opinion) two articles that need serious work instead of one. Isn't this just going to multiply the stress until agreement is reached on a working arrangement?
        • No, because if this article gets deleted, I cannot imagine how the dispute could be resolved, unless one side just gives up. This is the only thing I can think of. Not to mention I think it stands just fine as an article in its own right, and splitting content off into subarticles is just fine if it's necessary to do so. Everyking 18:30, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Absolute waste of space; non-notable. I'm tempted to think it's either a prank, or some kind of 'proof of concept'. As for 'the considerable size of Autobiography (album)', this is a consequence of the article's main contributor, Everyking himself. -Ashley Pomeroy 18:03, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • A consequence of Everyking trying to write an encyclopedia article, yes. Everyking 18:06, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't think having too much detail is a problem; in fact it's a good thing to have many long articles if the information is relevant. -Ld | talk 18:45, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. "It's not every day that a debut album enters the charts at number 1." If that's true chart listings are a valid topic to write about. Also, there's enough articles that need to have subarticles because of their size, and I can't see why this article shouldn't. Mgm|(talk) 19:41, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • DELETE. No one gives a shit about this but Everyking, but, more importantly, it's utterly unencyclopedic and senselessly stupid. Last I checked we're not a fansite for prefabricated pop princesses. I thought this Autobiography bullshit was settled, but I guess not. In fact the Autobiography album article should be deleted and rewritten from scratch by someone with a semblence of a sense of perspective. -R. fiend 19:45, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I think that's rather harsh given the time and effort people have put into the article. violet/riga (t) 19:50, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • People should feel free to waste their time any way they want, but they should not look to me for sympathy when they do. -R. fiend 19:56, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • We're an encyclopedia. We cover notable subjects even if User:R. fiend does not like them. Everyking 03:15, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • They key word there is notable. Every detail about one lame-ass album is not notable; even if it were an album of real importance this shouldn't stand. Just because something can be written about a subject does not mean it belongs in an encyclopedia. Has anyone noticed no other album has this sort of granularity? I suppose every other album is flawed and this is the way to write album articles. Isn't there meant to be a relationship between the importance of a subject and the length and detail of its article? Why don't you quit wikipedia and start your own Ashlee fan site? I think you'd be much better at it. So the album debuted at #1. Great. It says that in the album article, now why do we need to know how many goddamn copies were sold every single day? If we went into this kind of detail with a subject of actual significance, like Eisenhower, we'd have a full length biography on our hands, not an encyclopedia article. One article in enough for any album. This is just moronic. -R. fiend 16:06, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • We are not paper. We are not a standard encyclopedia—in fact, we are redefining what an encyclopedia is. We have the space to cover all notable information. I reject the inclusion of useless trivialities, but I even more strongly reject the deletion of notable information just because someone thinks the subject doesn't need so much text devoted to it. And I do more on Wikipedia than edit Ashlee articles. How am I supposed to write on the various other subjects that interest me on an Ashlee fan site? Everyking 16:18, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
          • "In its sixth week, Autobiography dropped further to number six, and in its seventh week it fell to number eight. The album returned to number six in its eighth and ninth week, despite selling fewer copies than in the seventh week. It fell to number nine in its tenth week, though sales held steady. Subsequently the album fell (although it rose three spots in week 12), eventually dropping to number 51 in its 17th week (in mid-November 2004), before rising in the next two weeks—to number 50 and then 34—and then briefly falling again. It rose significantly in its 21st week on the chart, however, from 42 to 33, with a 61% increase in sales, according to a Geffen press release." Now tell me again how you "reject the inclusion of useless trivialities" because I didn't catch the joke the first time. It's a funny one too. Sort of like me saying I've never fucking sworn in any VfD comment. And what's with this argument people keep making "wouldn't it be just fantastic if every album were covered this way?" 1: No. It wouldn't. and 2: that could never happen. What we're going to be left with is every other album in existence will have a short, sanely written article, and we'll be stuck with this monstrousity detailing how many albums were sold in Burkina Fasso on July 17th (3), and the number of dicks Ashlee had to suck to get this album made (14). Users will be left baffled as to what this album did that it gets every fact about it detailed here while comparable albums (of which there are plenty) are nothing like this. The only answer is that this album tickled Everyking's fancy and it sent him on an ill-fated and poorly conceived crusade to have it be a Featured Article, sending the whole project on a downward spiral of madness. -R. fiend 16:50, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: A bad precedent as an article, and an article without precedent. The information on chart position is kept by Billboard Magazine in the US and needn't be put here. The interested parties would be confined to the Ashlee Simpson entourage. It is not encyclopedic. Geogre 20:36, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. (Second choice merge back into parent at expense of fluff--70K on a debut album by a manufactured singer seems excessive.) 90% of the home article is by two people, and it contains contradictory info. We basically have more extended coverage of a newcomer, single album sensation, pop singer with a longer article than the Beatles or Stones or Sinatra? You gotta be kidding. Over 700 edits in the past 5 months? Probably needs pruning by a more objective editor. Wikipedia is intended to provide coverage of the whole world over the entire span of time, not just a glimpse of what the US was fixated on in 2004. Niteowlneils 21:14, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • For one thing, I am an objective editor. I have not done as much uncontroversial work as I have here to be called a POV pusher and told that my writing should be scrapped. For another, what is contradictory in the article? God knows I don't want any factual errors in it. Finally, Wikipedia is not paper and we freely permitted and encouraged to cover in considerable detail all notable subjects. If the problem is that someone has been working harder on an Ashlee-related article than people are on Beatles/Stones/Sinatra-related articles, the answer is not to delete the former but to expand the latter. Everyking 03:14, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Comment So you are saying that an article should be deleted because it offers better "coverage" than other articles of more popular bands? That doesn't make any sense. More likely it would encourage people working on Beatles or Stones to write more detailed articles in order to keep up. -Ld | talk 21:29, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I think that Wikipedia sufficently covers musicians that have DECADES of notable music (Doors, Stones, Beatles, Zeppelin, Sinatra, etc.) as well as those with music that has lasted CENTURIES (Bach, Mozart, etc.), a single album doesn't justify similar coverage, especially for someone who never gets primary credit on one's songs as lead songwriter. I just think that 60-70K on a debut album (covering a single YEAR) by a manufactured singer is overkill. Niteowlneils 21:49, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • COMMENT - I think that much of the information in this article is useful not necessarily as fancruft, but because it documents how strongly marketing influences popular culture. iMeowbot~Mw 23:25, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, but Merge as possible to her article. Wyss 00:32, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • keep Yuckfoo 00:47, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. If you think either this or the main article is too detailed, then go forth & edit and fight out on the talk pages what should and should not be kept, and where. After you've sorted that out, there should be an easy consensus over whether this article is still necessary. Wholesale deleting of a 14K article that, as far as I can see, conforms perfectly to all the objective standards we have is not the way to go. Try convincing me that keeping this for now will offend anything besides our chimaerical Standard for Notability, Relevance and Public Image instead. JRM 03:15, 2004 Dec 25 (UTC)
  • Delete. The definition of overkill. Gamaliel 03:20, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Rhobite 03:27, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • delete. Mikkalai 03:41, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm no fan of this particular style of music, but if the fans of other artists would provide similar information in all such articles, Wikipedia would be even more outstanding as a free resource for those of us who can't afford to purchase Billboard every week. In any case, I hope all of the editors concerned will find ways to contribute without deleting each other's work. — DV 04:15, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I was honestly torn between abstaining and voting, but based on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, I feel this material is inappropriate for Wikipedia. Trim all the fluff away and merge and redirect to Autobiography (album). Or you could just delete it. Whichever. Regardless, we are an encyclopedia, not a music encyclopedia or even a repository of information. Even the books I borrow from the library to research material only state the singles' peak charting positions, and these are books specifically about music. Why should an encyclopedia covering general topics be any different? Summarising my vote, merge & redirect OR delete. Johnleemk | Talk 08:48, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • We're an encyclopedia, not a repository. Rewrite to something of the size of about one paragraph, then merge back and delete. - Andre Engels 15:36, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Tuf-Kat 19:16, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. If people take the time to gather useful musical information like this, then this only enhances Wikipedia's richness. I've been reading some other musical vfd's and there are only a few Wikipedians such as Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Bootylicious that are actually determined to delete anything they don't know about musically. Angel Tiger 21:47, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • No one gives a shit about this but Everyking
    • it's... senselessly stupid
    • I thought this Autobiography bullshit was settled
    • This is just moronic
    • Why don't you quit wikipedia and start your own Ashlee fan site?
    • &c.
  • Keep. No-one's quitting Wikipedia. Not on my watch. chocolateboy 22:26, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm very sorry about this, Everyking, but this information is better presented just in a chart. Writing it out in prose is a little overkill. The current information on chart position in the main article seems enough for the casual reader, with links to external resources that are dedicated to this sort of information is enough for the user who needs it. The wikipedia can't have everything, if other people can do it better. And R._fiend, STOP WITH THE PERSONAL ATTACKS ON EVERYKING. IT IS VERY RUDE AND AGGRAVATING TO READ. So, in summary, a very polite delete, no redirect, for the name is unsearchable. hfool 22:59, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • But it is in charts! The data that fits neatly in a chart format is tabled. But much of the data would make no sense in a chart. You can see this in the article: there are two tables already, which nicely compliment the prose. Anyway, I appreciate your politeness. Everyking 23:26, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Well, it fits even worse in prose. Johnleemk | Talk 05:29, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fancruft. Bloat. If the information is even worthy of inclusion it should be included in Autobiography (album). It does not merit its own article. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 06:24, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • P.S. - Everyking: @#%&ing let up with this Autobiography stuff! I don't want to throw around personal attacks, but are you obssessed? I'm getting SICK of hearing about this stuff! You've written more about this record than I have written on anything, ever, in my life! BLANKFAZE | (что??) 06:27, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Well, I'm sorry. I'm not working for a salary here, so I figure I'm at liberty to more or less write what I want to write about, within reason. Everyking 12:35, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • Within reason. This has gone overboard. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 22:23, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
          • Recording some sales and chart information regarding a popular album is going overboard? Seriously, if this was a comparable subject in another field, would you still say that? Everyking 23:31, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
            • No. Writing everything possible about everything from the album's cover design to in-depth statistics is overboard. It's not like this is an album with historic importance, meaningfulness, or artistic value. This is a cheesy pop record. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 01:09, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
              • Would you please drop it? I'm "getting SICK of hearing" your rudeness. You got your vote. Everyking 09:32, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's an attempt to avoid merciless editing. JRM, DavidVasquez, we've tried editing with Everyking, but he mass reverts other editors' works and treats other editors with a disdain that borders on incivility. VioletRiga, you should note that all the time "people" have put into the article has been wasted, because Everyking guards it like it was his child. Dr Zen 10:35, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Sadly I have to confirm that this is my experience, also. I have withdrawn from editing the Autobiography (album) article because attempts by me and others to introduce some badly needed edits, small-scale paragraph tweaks and compressions, were repeatedly reverted by Everyking. This VfD would not have been necessary, in my opinion, if Everyking did not insist on treating every single word of his writings on Ashlee Simpson as precious prose that must be defended to the death. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:31, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Neither of the above comments have much truth to them. I generally revert significant removal of verified information when it's done without consensus. I certainly do not revert all edits; even some of Tony's own edits in the past were embraced by me, and I personally thanked him for them. Everyking 12:30, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • Without consensus? Everyone has been removing and summarising these pointless information (by my count, Tony, Dr. Zen, Reene and I have all attempted our own rewrites). The only one opposing them is you. You revert all edits which do not fit your opinion. The article is significantly unbalanced and overflowing with inane data that you refuse to allow anyone to summarise. Johnleemk | Talk 14:17, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Repeated reverting is a blockable offense. Not communicating with editors to reach consensus is an offense subject to arbitration. So get an RfC or RfA going, or (even better) try going back to the negotiating table again to figure out what makes Everyking tick and why you disagree with his actions. Editorial disputes are irrelevant to the article's status. "We feel Everyking can't be reasoned with on the article and if it can't be edited to meet our standards, we want it deleted outright" is not an acceptable line of reasoning. All this does is reinforce my opinion that matters have not been discussed fully yet. This VfD could now be taken as an issue of politics rather than content. I'll have none of this. (My vote still stands irrespective of these issues.) JRM 13:59, 2004 Dec 26 (UTC)
        • Close. Basically Everyking absolutely refuses to countenance any significant edits to the content of the article. This page is in my view an attempt to reduce the size of the original article. I will not start a RfC because it may drive Everyking away. On the other hand I cannot stomach his persistent dishonesty his repeated resort to false accusations, and his customary application of blanket reverts. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:07, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • Everyking intentionally dodges the 3RR, so he can't be blocked for that. He pretends to discuss, but the volumes of verbiage we have all churned out in various attempts to discuss this haven't yielded anything. If you need an example of what he considers "useful information", check out the article's peer review listing. We've tried negotiating. Ambi and Tony have given up on mediation, but I'm willing to try even though I'm skeptical. Johnleemk | Talk 14:17, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
          • "Pretends"? I've talked and talked and talked, and went as far as to create this article to satisfy objections, and I've proposed creating more like it. Meanwhile, the others involved in the discussion have done little except lecture me about reverting; there's been virtually no content discussion from the other side. Everyking 14:24, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
            • There actually are unanswered questions about content a the bottom of Talk:Autobiography sales and chart positions. All I have really asked is what the value of all that weekly chart data is. With so much repeated insistence that the data is valuable to have in Wikipedia, that should be a simple question to answer, no? iMeowbot~Mw 14:48, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
            • I haven't talked about reverting at all. Tony isn't the only party to this conflict, you know. Johnleemk | Talk 15:05, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • Oh that's bad. If I had read this comment by Everyking I would never have allowed myself to get involved. He lists a lovely bit of compression by Dr Zen "In Canada, the album debuted at number 37 on the Jam Music charts in late July [1], and peaked at 11" and insists that his own 200 or so words of rambling are superior. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:31, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
          • But now that information is nicely summarized in table form: no information was lost, and the bland prose is gone. Didn't that work out well? I never said my prose was superior to the table; I said the prose was superior to having no such information at all. Everyking 14:38, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
            • I quote from the article:
            • In its sixth week, Autobiography dropped further to number six, [2] and in its seventh week it fell to number eight. [3] The album returned to number six in its eighth and ninth week, despite selling fewer copies than in the seventh week. [4] [5] It fell to number nine in its tenth week, though sales held steady. [6] Subsequently the album fell (although it rose three spots in week 12), eventually dropping to number 51 in its 17th week (in mid-November 2004), before rising in the next two weeks—to number 50 and then 34—and then briefly falling again. It rose significantly in its 21st week on the chart, however, from 42 to 33, with a 61% increase in sales, according to a Geffen press release. [7] Johnleemk | Talk 15:05, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
              • I thought we were talking about the Canada chart. The reason the prose you quote still exists is because there are external cites provided, and I don't see how to have the cites in a table. Also, there's some information in there that can't be properly given in a table, such as the 61% increase noted in the press release. Everyking 15:08, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
                • A separate reference/notes column/row could be used. The increase can be noted in the prose if it's remarkable, or if not that remarkable, a separate column/row detailing percentage increases could be created. Johnleemk | Talk 10:33, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
                  • I don't quite understand what you mean, but it sounds constructive for a change. Why don't you outline your proposal on one of the talk pages, so I can understand it better? Everyking 10:55, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You are all making my head hurt. This is not relevant to the VfD discussion. Take it to the talk page, the peer review section, or an RfC, but not here. To me, at least, it is patently obvious that there is nothing even remotely approaching consensus here, let alone consensus to delete. Please don't put your personal disagreements over relevant content here, as much as they need to be sorted out. JRM 15:20, 2004 Dec 26 (UTC)

  • Delete: useless trivia. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:58, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: this isn't Billboard, and I'm not sure the album itself even deserves an article. —tregoweth 16:12, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)
    • A number one, multi-platinum album doesn't deserve an article?! Man, I tell you, sometimes I wonder what I'm doing with all my work here; maybe someday every bit of it will be deleted. Everyking 17:23, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Okay, it doesn't deserve a book-length article chronicling every factoid and bit of trivia remotely connected to it. —tregoweth 18:20, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)
        • Well, you're preaching to the choir there. I consciously avoid including things that truly are trivial and useless. But don't you think an article should be thorough and comprehensive? That's what a featured article is supposed to be. Everyking 18:26, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
          • Evidently we disagree on what constitututes comprehensive then. You couldn't understand the Pythagorean theorem's applications without complicated explanation. However, you don't need to know that Autobiography was at position X during week Y in the US to understand that it was a record-breaking album. Johnleemk | Talk 07:03, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Death to fancruft. Rather 17:38, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • User has only one edit to an actual article, and it's vandalism. Only seems to appear when matters related to Ashlee Simpson come up. Everyking 18:11, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'd recommend merging it into the album's article, but that article's so long it'd just have to be split out again anyway. So keep. Bryan 20:22, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Well presented article. You can't fault someone for being thorough or exhaustive - that's just good research. Btljs 23:53, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. The subject of the article is sufficiently notable and verifiable for wikipedia. While many of us may consider the apparent effort put into the article as incongruent to the (complete lack of) importance of the subject, the subject is sufficiently notable. ElBenevolente 02:30, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment It occurs to me that this article might be more appropriate for MusicWiki. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:33, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete or Merge/Redirect. This subtrivial information should either not be on Wikipedia, or should be trimmed radically and merged into the article on the Album (which itself needs a lot of trimming or should not exist). The transwiki idea isn't bad either. --Improv 16:11, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - this does not in any way fit the Wikipedia:Deletion policy. If yhou disagree, please give me supporting quotes. Deleting an article for too much detail? WTF?! - David Gerard 18:37, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Please refer to Wikipedia:Informative for an explanation. The article "needed" to be branched from its parent because it is mostly data that is not actionable. iMeowbot~Mw 18:53, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Our deletion policy says "No potential to become encyclopedic" is a valid argument for deletion. I'm also basing this on precedent — Autobiography album design was deleted, and as such, I don't see why this should be any different. The individual singles were different, and I voted keep on them, but this seems even less encyclopedic to me than Autobiography album design. Johnleemk | Talk 16:44, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • As I pointed out to you on IRC, to a record nerd this sort of info is gold. You're applying an "I'm not interested so delete it" criterion - David Gerard 22:17, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        Let me fill this one in for the deletionists, and see if I get it right. Ahem. Wikipedia is a general interest encyclopedia, not a record nerd encyclopedia. You're applying an "it might be of interested to someone so leave it in" criterion. We are supposed to provide comprehensive information to all readers, not super minor fan trivia for Ashlee Simpson devotees. How'd I do? JRM 22:48, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)
      • You said it, David, it's nerd gold. This is not what encyclopedias are for. As somebody who actually worked on the information that has now overspilled into this article, I can accurately summarise it as:
After its US release in July, 2004, Autobiography entered at number one and stayed in the top ten of the Billboard album charts for ten weeks and was certified triple platinum in September, with sales of 1,866,000 in the first ten weeks. In the Canadian charts its performance was more modest; it peaked briefly at number eleven but has remained in the top fifty for five months to date. Ashlee's sales figures compare favorably with those of her sister Jessica, whose peak came when the special edition of In this Skin hit number two in early 2004.
The success took Simpson and her record company by surprise. Simpson told Janelle Brown of Seventeen " "I just hoped my album charted. I didn't expect it to be number one in the country! It was a huge shock." Jordan Schurr, President of Geffen Records, said Simpson's rise from obscurity was especially surprising. "It's unheard of in this business—even for a superstar—to sell this number of records."
"Simpson attributes the success of the album to its emotional sincerity, telling Capital FM (London) that you can tell "if you listen to an album, if they're being real or not..." She also said that people of many different ages could enjoy the album, though it is commonly thought to appeal primarily to teenagers.
      • That and may a paragraph about other revenue (online etc) covers the album, and could have remained in the main article if only Everyking had permitted others to edit the text. He won't let that happen, which is why we have these bloated monstrosities calving new articles like icebergs every couple of weeks. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:08, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. --Golbez 18:40, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Ground 18:41, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Simpsoncruft (Ashlee) Edeans 23:53, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Obvious Keep We have to remember that (just as Everyking said) Wikipedia is not paper, wouldn't it be great if all our articles on artists records were like this!!! It is a well written article and it was even somewhat interesting to someone totally clueless about Ashlee Simpson (meaning me). That ALONE is enough for a keep. Gkhan 01:59, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- Walt Pohl 06:12, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge the content back into the main article and solve the editing problems there. Splitting up the article solely in order to avoid the hard work of resolving an editing dispute goes against our community standards. Rossami (talk) 06:43, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Use of Wikipedia is not paper "argument" = admission that an article is not worthy of being included in an encyclopedia. Elf-friend 10:52, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Meelar (talk) 17:26, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete Ashlee Simpson is not notable enough. Megan1967 23:17, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Wiki is not paper. Neutralitytalk 06:11, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • As usual in discussions of this type, every side has a point. Honor the work that's gone into it, so i'm voting merge with autobiography (album) Lectonar 09:19, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, this is Wikipedic information, plain and simple. GRider\talk 18:22, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge back into the main article. - SimonP 20:31, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Autobiography_sales_and_chart_positions/Archive1&oldid=1079905629"