Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashlee Simpson U.S. tour, 2005

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. 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 delete. Mackensen (talk) 01:14, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ashlee Simpson U.S. tour, 2005
This tally chart has been added by me. If I've added your vote in error, please edit my chart. Mike H 03:17, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

More of Everyking's Ashleecruft. RickK 06:40, Feb 16, 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 the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
 * Delete, please make it stop! Adam Bishop 06:42, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, Wiki is not paper. Everyking 06:44, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete today! Rhobite 06:45, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete, Ashlee is ruining Wikipedia! -- Riffsyphon1024 06:46, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge Stick this with the general Ashlee Simpson article.  --Hedgeman 06:51, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Huh? Everyking 06:46, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Why constantly try to annoy people with useless and unnecessary articles when you can just edit away at her main article, and instead of making it sound like a commercial. -- Riffsyphon1024 06:48, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I want to write about the tour itself. It's a notable thing in its own right. Everyking 07:01, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete: Wiki is not bog paper. -- Hoary 06:55, 2005 Feb 16 (UTC)
 * Delete, this is, first, already on Ashlee Simpson's main article: Ashlee Simpson. Second, this does not need to be it's own article --AlexTheMartian 06:58, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Much of it isn't, and I'm planning on expanding it greatly. They haven't even done the first show yet. Everyking 07:01, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * When they do, I'll enjoy cackling over the Guardian review of this non-event. -- Hoary 07:32, 2005 Feb 16 (UTC)
 * Boy, someone's gonna have to provide a translation of some of the Brit-Pop-Culture terminology in that review. --Calton 08:13, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * You have got to be kidding. Delete, jam a wooden stake in its heart, burn the corpse, and salt the earth it lay upon. Everyking, you're becoming a parody of yourself. Get help. --Calton 07:07, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Having just read the entry for Fancruft, I reluctantly agree that a musical tour of a big name artist is an event large enough to justify its own page. However, I favour retaining information about future tours within the artist's main page and only forking off a separate page after the tour has occured and the level of detail has risen sufficiently for the separate page to be clearly larger than a stub (and for there to be no doubt that it's not promotional in nature). I'm not familiar with Wikipedia procedures; If it's deleted now can it come back later? ...at 08:33, 2005 Feb 16 Krisjohn forgot the twiddles
 * Keep now or let it be recreated when it gets bigger. Did we mention that wikipedia is not paper? ...at 09:01, 2005 Feb 16 Kappa forgot to hit the twiddles
 * Did we mention that it's supposed to be an encyclopedia, not an obsessed fanboy shrine? --Calton 10:27, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Information about major tours by popular artists would fit nicely in a music encyclopedia, and I don't think it says anywhere that WP limits itself to being a "general" encyclopedia. Kappa 10:44, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: I can't think of any music encyclopedia that has entire articles about individual tours by particular, ah, artistes. (A fanboy encyclopedia devoted to Simpson might, though.) -- Hoary 11:01, 2005 Feb 16 (UTC)
 * Delete. I wouldn't mind a list of Ashlee Simpson tours with brief descriptions on each, but this is becoming too specific. Radiant! 11:04, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - unnecessary detail in its own page - Skysmith 11:14, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - Merits a sentence in the main article. --BM 12:54, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Get hold of the MediaWiki software, get some hosting sorted, and set up an Ashlee Simpson encyclopedia. Trilobite (Talk) 14:36, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I guess that would be nice, but it doesn't excuse Wikipedia from the task of having a general article on the tour. I hear there's a music wiki now, but I don't see people running around deleting music articles left and right. Everyking 14:44, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete this is getting absolutely ridiculous. Enough already. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd  14:43, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as unnecessary detail for insufficiently notable performer; speculative, with no verifiable content except a schedule of future events; and for the not-quite-policy reason that WP has already VfD'ed other Ashlee-excess-detail breakout articles. This has already gotten into past rounds of Requests for Comment and I hope it ends instead of leading to feuding.  Barno 14:51, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Speculative? Everything in the article is factual and verifiable. Everyking 14:56, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * And appealing to precedent doesn't make much sense. As I recall, four Ashlee articles have been kept (POM, Shadow, La La, Auto sales&charts) and two have been deleted (Auto album design, Auto promo & publicity). Everyking 14:59, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Oops, what about the articles about Ashlee on SNL and Ashlee on Mad TV? Did those slip your mind? Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd  14:06, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. It might be acceptable to have one article with a list of all of her tours. This isn't Ashlipedia. Carrp | Talk 15:04, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Fine. We can consolidate all the information on her concerts past present and future onto this article if it gets kept. But there's no sense in deleting it. The fact is, people will find this article useful. Everyking 15:09, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't it be easier and more productive to create a new page such as List of Ashlee Simpson tours and use the existing information as a starting point? I'm not sure how keeping this article (US tour, 2005) would be helpful to readers or editors. Carrp | Talk 15:15, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * We can always just move it to another title if we decide to do that. But keep in mind this is her first real tour per se, although I could still write some stuff about her 2004 concerts. Everyking 15:22, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Concur with Carrp, make one such list, under the most generic title (i.e. not one ending in US. 2005). If list happens to have only one tour, I believe we should merge with main A.S. article. Radiant! 15:26, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Just as with all other musicians, and indeed all other articles in general, breaking out discographies/tour lists/biographies is only warranted when the size of the relevant section in the main article becomes unwieldy. This is most definitely not the case for a musician's very first tour which hasn't even occurred yet.  Delete this groundless fork, and let the already existing tour section of Ashlee Simpson expand in the normal way.  Uncle G 16:03, 2005 Feb 16 (UTC)
 * Delete, or merge back into the main article if more detail is required there. The tour hasn't even had its first performance yet.  An article may be warranted if something particularly noteworthy (in the context of popular music, not just Ashlee Simpson) happens on the tour.  If she has more than a few tours, then it might be worthwhile to break them out together into a separate article, but that's a question for a couple of years from now. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 16:36, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Abstain leaning toward keep. I don't see the harm of forking this off of the main article and deleting it after the tour ends.  Someone researching Ashlee Simpson could conceivably be interested in tour info.  Just my $.02. - Lucky 6.9 17:43, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Putting this specific VfD aside for a moment, I strongly disagree with the idea of creating an article with the intention of deleting it in the future. If an article's subject is encyclopedic today, it won't become unencyclopedic in the future. Even if it was no longer notable in the future, it would still be encyclopedic because it was notable at one time. Getting back to this VfD, I don't like the idea of such a specific article. Are there going to be separate articles if there are tours in 2006 or 2007? What about tours in countries other than the US? I support the creation of one article, such as List of Ashlee Simpson tours. Carrp | Talk 18:09, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * And if you vote keep, that's what we'll have. But if this deleted, then the precedent will be set not to have articles on tours, which I think is ridiculous. Think how many people will go to these shows, and how many of them there are. Not only that, but it's going to be featured on the reality show, which makes it even more notable. Everyking 18:43, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, how many articles on tours do we currently have? Just this one, Lollapalooza, Family Values Tour (substub), and Lilith Fair (stub).  Nobody seems to have bothered to put up articles about any of the enormous single-artist insternational tours that have happened every year for decades.  If major world tours don't get articles, then why should this single-country tour have one?  If all tours should have articles, then we should focus on the major tours by the likes of Madonna, U2, Elton John, The Rolling Stones, etc. before we bother with Ashlee trivia. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd  19:13, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * We have a paltry stub on the Blond Ambition Tour. If Ashlee Simpson is a worldwide superstar in 10 years, maybe she can have a similar tour worthy of mention. Adam Bishop 19:48, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * What kind of logic is that? I imagine someone in the early days of Wikipedia insisting on the deletion of an article on San Marino because China doesn't yet have an article. It doesn't matter whether we start big or small. Everyking 19:53, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * See, you seem to be assuming that tours don't have articles simply because nobody has had time to create them yet. Instead, I'd say that tours don't have articles because most people feel they're not encyclopedic.  Example: Madonna's Re-invention Tour was probably the most important tour of last year (certainly the highest-grossing) and the folks over at the Madonna (entertainer) article have discussed the tour in the main article, complete with two pictures, rather than spinning it off.  If any recent tour should have an article, it should be that one, but it doesn't, because it's just plain not necessary.  Think about it: imagine somebody really did want to use Wikipedia to research Ashlee's tour.  Which is more logical... that they'd look for it on the Ashlee Simpson page, or that they'd type in "Ashlee Simpson U.S. tour, 2005"?  Come on, now. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd  21:05, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * ...They'd go to Ashlee's article first and follow the link, obviously. That's how we organize all kinds of things. A summary in Ashlee's article, then comprehensive detail in this one. Everyking 21:27, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I support articles that detail all tours of an an artist. I do not support articles on one tour in one year in one country. Unless you believe this is Ashlee Simpson's first and last tour, there needs to be a more general article. I can't speak for any other users, but voting to delete an article on a specific tour and keep a general list of tours makes sense. Carrp | Talk 18:57, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * But it'd be the same content, I'd just move it to a new title and thereby give it a new "mission statement". Everyking 19:09, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Isn't this her only tour, though? Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd 19:13, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * According to the article it is indeed her only tour. It began today. We have a guide to writing better articles, which recommends forking sections when they grow too big. We also have plenty of examples of this in action, such as India. Ashlee Simpson already has a section for what she's intending to do in 2005. It hasn't grown anywhere near large enough to warrant a fork, given that this is an artist with exactly one tour ever that hasn't really happened yet.  Indeed, the fork is barely longer than the section in the main article itself, and the main article already has nearly all of its content. This fork is groundless. In other cases where there has been an edit war in the main article, followed by one of the participants then forking off xyr own private articles on sub-sub-topics that are simultaneously being edited collaboratively in the main article, we stop them.  The creationism/evolution, Zionism, eastern Europe, Pakistan, China, big bang, and other debates may be higher profile than a debate about a singer on MTV that most people have never heard of, but they are all the same when it comes to article forking. Uncle G 11:01, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)
 * Agreed. And since it's her only tour, then re-purposing the article as a general list of her tours (with only one item!) wouldn't exactly improve it. I still vote Strong delete.Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd  13:47, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * It just might be her first and her last. -- Riffsyphon1024 19:21, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Ooh, good point regarding a "throwaway" article. That would be a rather ugly precident.  Still, the more I think about it, the more I feel this should stay as part of a larger list.  I like the idea of a List of Ashlee Simpson tours beginning with the info in this article if this is her first tour.  We have a lot more ephemeral info than this floating around this site and the info might be better served as part of a larger list.  Heck, I came up with Mercedes-Benz 6.9 Specifications to unclutter the main article!  That's ephemeral, friends. - Lucky 6.9 18:59, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I would be fine with a general article on her touring. At first it would by necessity focus on this tour, but with time it would presumably grow to cover more. But if this is deleted, then I can't recreate it in any form, because it'd be too similar, like recreating a deleted article. Everyking 19:09, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. Wikipedia is not paper, but it is also not the Library of Babel, nor is it an endless and tedious compendium of every bit of trivia and gossip and useless, insignificant "facts". It is an encyclopedia, not a dumping ground.  That means we have a duty not to mindlessly compile facts but to present them in a consise and usable manner, making judgments about which facts are important and which are not.  Concert tours even by notable artists are largely non-notable, and even when they are notable, a short summary in that artist's article will suffice.  The profliferation of articles on this insignificant singer who will be largely forgotten in a couple of years shows that detached, objective judgment is not being applied to this matter. Gamaliel 19:06, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * There's plenty of judgment and objectivity. I consider a tour which will involve thousands of spectators and will attract some media attention (at least from MTV) to be notable. I do not philosophically agree with you about summarizing and making things concise. Regardless of what you say, that philosophy is the very opposite of the "wiki is not paper" notion&mdash;it's the mentality of the editor of a paper encyclopedia. Things should exist in a concise format to suit the general reader, but there are also readers who will want detail who need to be satisfied as well. On the other hand, I am not trying to fill Wikipedia up with trivia. I believe non-notable content should be removed. This is merely an attempt at a general article on the tour; I am not trying to produce fan-site detail. Everyking 19:15, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm curious how you define trivia, because it appears that you are trying to fill Wikipeida with exactly that. Gamaliel 19:21, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * weak Keep I'm pushed over the boundary towards keeping because of the inevitable MTV coverage this tour is going to get.  Johntex 19:32, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd personally have to plead mea culpa to the charge of adding trivia. I've written about two defunct roads, a defunct amusement park, two nearly defunct towns, a defunct toy car and a defunct real car.  I don't know how many Google hits Ashlee Simpson gets, but I'm sure it's a considerable number.  Adding detail to whatever information this site can provide for an up-to-the-minute subject should be welcomed.  We have to keep the end user in mind.  This isn't bandcruft at all.  It's verifiable and factual information that's spun off of the main article about a "hot commodity."  Wikilove, all.  :^) - Lucky 6.9 19:38, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, not encyclopedic, potential fork/dupe. Wyss 20:05, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Y'all, really.  There's absolutely no need for this article.  Just put it in her main article.  One of the things I love most about this place is the lively intellectual debate over things like this, but I can't believe how much mental effort has been dumped into this cesspit of a topic. Katefan0 21:59, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * The main article is long and will continue to grow. I don't have space to write adequately about the tour there. Everyking 22:10, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I imagine that's probably nothing that a nice, sharp editor's pencil can't fix. Katefan0 22:24, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * We're trying to build this encyclopedia, not deconstruct it. Everyking 22:28, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * We're trying to build a good encyclopedia. Wheat will always be wheat, and chaff will always be chaff.  Katefan0 22:32, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Of course. I suppose we just disagree about what's wheat and what's chaff. Everyking 22:39, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * It's a continuum, not a dichotomy, so I guess we'll always be fighting about it. Kappa 23:01, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - not notable, only of interest to hardcore fans. If the main article is too long, it's because it needs serious trimming and editing - it shouldn't be spawning so many offshoots, really. Worldtraveller 22:13, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not a hardcore fan, I'm just curious about her because of Everyking, but I still find that material interesting, especially the songs she plans to play. Kappa 22:26, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Lots of artists have lots of tours. What makes any of them notable? The artist is notable, the songs are notable, the albums are notable, and those three types of articles should be able to encompass any relavent information on a given topic. --InShaneee 22:40, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I hope Everyking is being compensated well for writing these articles.  212.157.248.28 23:03, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is not an encyclopedia article, no matter how you slice it. It's just a tour itinerary, and for one that just started today, for crying out loud.   &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 00:01, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * What, so it'd be better if I created it in April? Seems to me better to have the article early, because while the tour is ongoing is when people are most likely to want the info. Everyking 00:18, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * It is not article-worthy either way. -- Riffsyphon1024 00:54, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * If it's information that's only of ephemeral usefulness, perhaps it belongs on Wikinews, if anywhere...? --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 05:13, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, more notable bands don't even have lists of the many world tours the have done--nixie 00:49, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * So get to work, why don't you? Everyking 01:25, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - only major tours/shows, or tours/shows that have brand identity distinct from the bands performing, should have articles. -Sean Curtin 01:24, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Examples include Ozzfest, Warped Tour, Woodstock, and Lollapalooza. Ashlee Simpson's Tour is not an annual event. -- Riffsyphon1024 19:14, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. What Calton, Barno, Uncle G, Gamaliel and Starblind said. I don't think this would set a precedent for a future List of Ashlee Simpson tours. This one is an article on one single tour in one single country; if this vote sets any precedent, it would be regarding similar articles about one-artist single tour in one single country, not about articles summarizing all tours by a given artist. (And a trivial sidenote: I had never heard of this woman.) JoaoRicardo 08:15, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: I hadn't heard of her till the other day myself. I wonder if "Ashlee" rhymes with "Milli" or Vanilli". Anyway, she's recorded one album, and you can find more about her music in this Guardian article. -- Hoary 13:14, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. You are certainly forgetting that Wikipedia has several articles on The Simpsons.  Just because this Simpson is not the creation of Matt Groening doesn't mean her music isn't important. &mdash; Jesse's Girl 19:19, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * She has a page at Ashlee Simpson. She also has pages for each one of her albums. Ashlee and her music are well represented on Wikipedia. There is no need for there to be an article specific to one tour. Carrp | Talk 19:27, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Jesse's Girl's first edit was today. Gamaliel 19:30, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * So? I'm a legitimate user. I've made a few contributions so far, but have been editing anonymously forever.  I only decided to get an account so I could participate in VfD.
 * If you've been around VfD before you'd know that tagging the votes of new users is pretty standard procedure and that admins tallying the votes may count or discount those particular votes based on their judgement. No offense was intended. Gamaliel 20:00, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I noticed that Jesse's Girl added the event of Ashlee lip-synching on October 24 (also happens to be my birthday) and it was deleted by guess who? Yep, Everyking is trying to protect the validity of Ashlee's performances, however Jesse's Girl reverted it. Lol. -- Riffsyphon1024 23:59, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. A concert tour would have to be very exceptional to warrant a separate encyclopedia article.  Tours are where musicians go from city to city and give concerts.  So what?   Wikipedia isn't a concert listing. In this case, (a) Ashlee Simpson is not an especially notable artist; (b) we already have much more information than is reasonable about this artist; and (c) the tour just started, so if something exceptional during the tour is going to make it notable, it hasn't happened yet.   --BM 19:34, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * (Remark by Dpbsmith (talk) deleted by himself).
 * The result of your thorough research of the NY Times, I suppose? Why don't you hold the provocative statements? Everyking 00:49, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Point taken. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:01, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Cancer. -Ashley Pomeroy 19:48, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Cancer! See what I've got to deal with? You think this information is cancer? Everyking 20:01, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * What you've got to deal with? Are you Ashlee's agent now? In any case, "cancer" is the wrong term: metastasis is probably mush closer. --Calton 02:30, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. (But the term "cancer" is uncalled for, as I'm sure we all know, Miss Simpson is a Libra, not a Cancer). Totally unreasonable granularity. Include this material in the Ashlee Simpson article or not at all. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:56, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. --Carnildo 22:53, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Toot toot here comes the deletion clown. silsor 00:43, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Look at that fundraising notice up there. Hey, we'll take your money, but you can forget about all that business about being the sum of human knowledge! Everyking 00:51, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * So you'll be voting "keep" for everything on VfD? Every single article listed contains some bit of human knowlege, however small. --Carnildo 01:05, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Of course not. But I can sympathize with that kind of inclusionism far sooner than I can sympathize with deletionism that pushes for the removal of notable content. If we do make mistakes in our decisions, I'd rather we erred on the side of inclusion. Everyking 01:23, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Is it really necessary to let all these delete voters know individually that you disagree? I think we've all figured out that you want to keep the article. silsor 01:39, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, your vote was worded in a particularly obnoxious way, so I figured it warranted an obnoxious response. Everyking 01:42, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The problem is, of course, almost nobody -- and I do mean almost nobody -- agrees that the unvarnished raw boosterism trivia you dump into any article connected with Ashlee Simpson qualifies as "notable content". That you haven't understood this, that your invariable reaction to it is to wave your hands and pout, "I guess we disagree about that" instead of trying to understand that, and that you treat the slightest disagreement about or distaste for Ashlee Simpson as if it were a personal attack leads me to say: get help. Seriously. Imagine an editor behaving this way regarding Circumcision, Sollog, or England, and maybe you'll see some parallels and see how far out of proportion your actions are towards anything Ashlee Simpson-related. --Calton 02:30, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Calton, for God's sake, quit with the personal attacks and go write an article or something. I know you don't like me. Life will go on. Everyking 02:57, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Personal attacks? For God's sake read what I wrote. Step back and compare your behavior with the analogous behavior I cited. This has been going on for months, and nothing has penetrated: you're right, everyone else is wrong, and any and all misbehavior on your part is not your fault because other people forced you to do it. ArbCom made some findings on your behavior and imposed sanctions less than a month ago, and you've been blocked three times for violating them. Dozens of editors, thousands of words, some failed VfDs: what does it take to get through to you? --Calton 07:45, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * No, no, Calton, I've never said I'm 100% right or anybody else is 100% wrong. My "misbehavior" has been awfully mild&mdash;I haven't told anybody to "get help" yet, for one thing&mdash;but when I have reacted too strongly to things I have apologized. Behind all your demonization of me is a simple content dispute regarding inclusion and notability, and yes, I do think I'm basically (not 100%) right in my positions there: so sue me. Everyking 09:39, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * More strawmen. Of course you've never said you're 100% right: you merely behaved as if you're 100% right, and offered thin rationalization after thin rationalization for it. That, coupled with mischaracterizations and distortions (both of people's postings and of the situations) so wild that they can only be either pathological or deliberate leads me to seriously say -- not as a horrible insult as your snide little passive-aggressive line above tries to make it out to be -- get help. Rereading the RfC and RfAr against you, discussing with friends willing to be objective, getting peer or psychological counseling, whatever.  --Calton 23:13, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * If your misbehaviour has been so mild, then why did it lead to an Arbitration case and sanctions against you just last month? The fact is that you've been defying consensus (one of the central principles of WP) on just about everything Ashlee-related.  The landslide victories of the last four VfDs against Ashlee articles surely must tell you something. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd  14:52, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, it's just politics. I try not to let that get to me. Of course the accusation that I defy consensus is absurd, too absurd to even bother refuting. Everyking 16:36, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, that last statement is breathtaking in its audacity. And what political games would ArbCom be playing, exactly? They explicitly ruled that you defied consensus: do you want to go on record now that the ruling was wrong? That ArbCom was wrong? And have you therefore filed your appeal with Jimbo Wales? --Calton 23:13, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Surely you would consider that the enormous landslide victories of the VfDs against the last four Ashlee spinoff articles represent a consensus that WP just doesn't need or want more of the same? Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd 19:06, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * The last four? Only two Ashlee articles have ever failed VfD. Four have survived. Everyking 22:25, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The other two are the Ashlee on SNL and Ashlee on Mad TV articles. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd  20:47, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * The Mad TV article doesn't count; it was a joke which I myself voted to delete. Everyking 20:55, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure my brain isn't going to comprehend why that VfD "doesn't count" because you voted delete on it, so I'll just reword my previous statement slightly and we'll move right along: Surely you would consider that the enormous landslide victories of the VfDs against the last four (or three) Ashlee spinoff articles represent a consensus that WP just doesn't need or want more of the same? Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd 00:43, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Where is Iasson when you really need him? Dpbsmith (talk) 21:01, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * For the sake of accuracy, do you mind listing them all? --Calton 23:13, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I did before: POM, Shadow, La La, Auto sales&charts&mdash;kept; Auto album design, Auto promo&publicity&mdash;deleted. Seems like you haven't been paying attention, Calt. Everyking 02:10, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Ashlee Simpson on SNL got deleted as well. Worldtraveller 02:23, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Oops. Yeah, I haven't been paying attention. Ok, 4 to 3, then. Everyking 02:42, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * It's called asking for clarification, Everk, on a claim both of you were making and on which even you were unclear. Seems like your snarkiness was uncalled for, hmm? --Calton 00:14, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unless the Hell's Angels show up and beat a couple dozen teenyboppers to death, there's nothing notable here. Madame Sosostris 05:51, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Subtrivial pseudoinformation. Wikipedia is not a recycling bin, a dumpster, or a landfill. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:01, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Jonathunder 06:06, 2005 Feb 19 (UTC)
 * Delete -- Longhair 18:36, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a shrine to pop tartlets. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 23:46, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Who said it was? Everyking 23:56, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * That would be you. --Calton 00:14, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't recall. When and where did I say that? Everyking 00:48, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * When you created this article. And the one on the album design. And the one on the album's sales. Rinse lather repeat. --Calton 11:26, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * What kind of logic is that? When I create articles on African elections, are those shrines to African leaders? Everyking 18:18, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. A.D.H. (t&m) 05:14, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep' or merge with main article. bbx 05:30, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Strongest Delete. The idea of making an individual encyclopedic article about the 2005 tour of a popstar is a contradiction in itself. This is obviously unencyclopedic, even if God himself were touring. I don't think it's worth a mention even in Ashlee Simpson's article, unless this particular tour is something notable, and we won't be prepared to judge about that before it's finished. Complete waste of Wikitime. vlad_mv 05:43, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, single tour by a single artist in which not a single thing has happened which is out of the ordinary means that it doesn't need its own article. - Vague | Rant 10:27, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, albeit with reluctance. I wish Everyking would spend his time on more worthwhile projects (meaning, oh, just about anything else), but the existence of more worthwhile projects isn't an argument for deletion.  I vote keep on the basis of his expressed willingness to make this a List of Ashlee Simpson tours when (if) there's a second one, so we can dump her whole touring career into one article. JamesMLane 11:18, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * We already have the one article. It's Ashlee Simpson, and it already has a section on the tour that is being collaboratively edited. Uncle G 22:54, 2005 Feb 20 (UTC)
 * delete this is what pollstar is for, it's her 15mins of "fame" over yet.--User:Boothy443 | comhrÚ 20:50, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - Goodbye Ashleecruft, Pieces of Crap. Advertising or other spam, begone. --Mrfixter 22:36, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, though it somehow pains me to say so. Being thoroughly sick of anything to do with Ms Simpson is not a reason for deletion per policy - David Gerard 23:05, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * After Everyking decided to stop editing many contentious Ashlee-related articles, I thought I'd give this a once-over to see if it was worthy. I don't really think it is. It reads like an advertisement: "Ashlee will be here, here, and here. These people will be performing with her." The only thing it lacks is "Buy your tickets from Ticketmaster!" Delete. Mike H 06:58, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Certainly it's not as notable as some B-list soap opera actors and actresses, huh? Come on now... Everyking 19:14, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Your bias is showing. While I may not like Ashlee Simpson, I keep this away from debates and try to come to the table with a clear mind about the articles written. To bring up your distaste for soap actresses (which you did, by calling them B-list, which has negative connotations), you're just throwing muck and I wish you would stop it. Mike H 21:20, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not throwing muck, I'm just saying that you seem to be the author of a lot of content that is less notable than this article. That content is very good, and I have no bias against soap operas. I just don't see how minor actors and characters from them can be considered more notable than this national tour by a platinum selling artist. Everyking 21:24, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The people I've written about, such as Luke and Laura and Cliff and Nina, are a lot more notable than you may think. In any case, let's stop this. Now. Mike H 21:41, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * You're not showing a whole lot of confidence in your reasoning with that kind of attitude, Mike. Everyking 04:28, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I just don't feel I have to prove anything to you. Mike H 04:38, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Fight over. Can you see the majority, Everyking? (Btw, I'm glad Wikipedia is finally back up!) -- Riffsyphon1024 05:54, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I can see the majority. Everyking 06:13, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, non-encyclopedic. Just another tour by just another artist. Rje 06:00, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Can't you extend that logic to anything? Everyking 06:13, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: No.   &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 07:31, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Well, that doesn't tell me much. I think you can. Just another president, just another war, just another natural disaster, just another nation-state, just another chemical element, just another classic of world literature, etc. Every national tour by a platinum selling artist is different, but they are all alike in that unifying characteristic. In the same way, every U.S. president is different, but all alike in that they are U.S. presidents. So the question is whether you care enough about the differences to notice them or place a priority on them, right? How can that be a determining factor in notability? If I happen to think, well, they all held the same office and governed the same country, so we don't need these articles, would that make them any less notable? No, because they are famous. If two things are independently famous, then they are each notable in their own right, regardless of whether you think they are similar or not. Everyking 07:45, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Try the "will anybody care about this 50 years from now" test. Fifty years from now, will anybody still care about World War Two? Yes. Will anybody care about the past Presidents of the USA? Yes (well, maybe not Buchanan). Will anybody care about a particular tour by a pop singer? No.   &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 00:34, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * By comparing Ashlee to presidents and the like, you've mostly proved everybody else's point... So far, you've created at least 10 or so Ashlee articles, all told. How many world leaders have that many articles on WP?  How many literary classics?  How many nobel laureates?  How many philosophers?  How many inventors, research scientists, chemists, mathematicians, professors?  I don't care if you listen to me or not, but for your own sake, listen to consensus: the Ashleecruft has gotten way out of hand. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd  00:43, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * It was a theoretical comparison. Most of the things you name deserve far more coverage than Ashlee and her music do, so if they're lacking, somebody needs to get to work. But that's not to say the subject of Ashlee doesn't still deserve comprehensive coverage. Everyking 00:58, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)