Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Autobiography album design

Autobiography album design
Autobiography album design 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 delete.

This discussion thread has also 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) 02:25, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This looks unencyclopedic. I've never heard of an album's design being the basis for an encyclopedia article. Cody The Blue Bomber 06:52, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * How nice of you to give me 10 whole minutes...look, as I explained on the talk page, the main album article is quite long, and people have been raising hell about it. So I wanted to break off some of the content, and I figured I knew enough that I could make it a reasonable article in its own right. Keep in mind not only was it bought by millions, it was seen by millions on an internationally broadcast TV show. Of course that's a keep vote, unless someone can think of something better to do with the content. Everyking 07:08, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * This isn't worth 30 seconds, frankly.
 * the main album article is quite long... Well, the answer, then, is to delete the extraneous material, not spread it hither and yon. Fancruft to the extreme. Delete. --Calton 07:15, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * But for God's sake, there isn't anything extraneous! They can raise the 32 KB limit, that would be fine with me, but they haven't, so I have to figure out something to do with all the content or else I'm going to be run out of town. Tell me something else to do with the content if you don't like it, I'm open to alternatives, I realize the article is unusual. Everyking 07:18, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Are you barking? Most of the album entry is extraneous! You use nearly 500 words to describe the music generally, 600 words for the singles, and 750 words for the rest of the songs individually. Throw in 560 just on the PR and 520 words on making the album, and you've got a bloated fanboy mess passing for an encyclopedia article. Want to know what's extraneous? Kill the PR section, for a start.--Calton 11:03, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect. Rhobite 07:21, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC) Changed my vote: Delete. Rhobite 03:58, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * I can't merge it. They'll flay me alive. They already want me banned just for putting chart and sales data into the article; if I put all this in there, I'm done for. Everyking 07:28, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Relax, you can't be banned for upsetting these people by including too much information. But they in turn can remove stuff they think is not notable.  Remember, these are people who have actually heard of Ashley Simpson, and are interested enough to care about what an entry on her debut album contains.  If they don't think the album design merits a few words, who would? --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway Talk]] 03:18, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep: Unless somebody can shorten the other article, or provide a valid reason why this material should not be on Wikipedia ("never heard of an album's design being the basis for an encyclopedia article" is not a valid reason), it should stay. Brianjd 07:39, 2004 Nov 28 (UTC)
 * Don't you have it backwards? Shouldn't the test be that something has a valid reason for being here (you know, notability), not the other way around?--Calton 11:03, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm of two minds about this. On the one hand, this seems like it's gone into "too much detail land". On the other, articles about artistic works should have at least some description of the work itself. The actual physical album is a part of the work, although people seem to have forgotten that. Keep for now. I think it'll be easier to judge whether this should ultimately stay or not after the various arguments surrounding the parent article have either died down or been resolved. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 07:55, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Although the album's picture cover is displayed in the parent article, a written description is needed for other parts of the album's design like pages of the booklet that comes with the CD version of the album.  I'm not sure if it's different for the cassette version?  Anyways, anyone can see this design article is valid for an encyclopedia.  If you read the talk page, it can even be a pioneer in album design articles.  Think of it, detailed individual articles on the designs of other albums such as the Beatles, Elvis, Madonna, and other legendary musicians.  In summary, it adds more necessary and vital data than a picture can ever do. Angel Tiger 08:18, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * N.B. User has previously only edited her user page - no proper contributions Special:Contributions/Angel_Tiger


 * Wow. This is bizarre.  I am an inclusionist &mdash; but THIS?  Are you obssessed with this album or something, Everyking?  We don't need this information here. Delete.   BLANKFAZE  | (&#1095;&#1090;&#1086;??) 10:01, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your vote, Blankfaze. Everyking 10:08, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Seriously! I don't mean to deride you, but you seem to be really gung-ho about this Ashley Simpson thing as of late.  BLANKFAZE  | (&#1095;&#1090;&#1086;??) 21:13, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete personally I think it is not a notable enough album cover to even be mentioned on the album page, but if you really want to discuss it, then it should be discussed on the album page not on its own article. c.f. Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band now there is a really notable album cover and it is covered on the album page. - Drstuey 12:53, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, those editors can make their own decisions, but that page is 32 KB long, so I couldn't possibly fault anyone if they wanted to breakout an article on the album design there. How can the album design for a number 1, platinum album not be notable? I would never say it should have its own article if we had room in the main article. But we no longer do, and people have expressed very strong opinions that it should be condensed. Everyking 13:05, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * as was explained to you on the talk page for the album, the 32 KB size is a recommendation, not a limit. Also, there is plenty of room in the main article if you delete the useless Promotion section. - Drstuey 13:42, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I have offered to discuss the promotion section on at least two occasions, but have been ignored. For my part, I'd rather leave it in, to give a unified perspective instead of forcing the reader to go to three separate singles articles to get the info. Certainly that's more important than what's in the article being discussed here about the design. The fundamental point is that you are trying to impose artificial limitations on the info I can add on this subject. More and more things will happen, and there will be more and more to write, and there are past things I need to add to the article as well, but I can't because it would be too big. It's irrational to say OK, this article is such and such size, so we'll have to delete these various notable facts, even though they're by themselves more notable than some other things we have whole articles on. Notable information should have a place in Wikipedia no matter what the article size is, and there ought to be no problem with starting breakout articles to provide the space. In fact, I thought precedent for this was well-established. Everyking 13:57, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete: Excessive. Shakespeare gets perhaps 2 articles.  China gets maybe 3.  This album is on the level of Shakespeare or a modern nation?  As for the deletion guidelines that this violates, it would have to be notability.  Before Everyking counter-argues, note that the lack of notability is not the album, but the "album design," which is the topic of this article.  Are the interesting things about the design of this album different from the interesting things about any album's design?  Is it a notable design, or just an average design, lovingly detailed?  Geogre 15:15, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * If fame is a subjective criteria&mdash;and it is one I support, broadly interpreted&mdash;then "interesting" is an absurdly subjective one. It's interesting to me, and there are lots of Ashlee fans, and other people may find it interesting simply as a case study of sorts regarding an album of popular music. As I said above, it's ridiculous to ask me to delete notable details just because we've run out of space. There has to be somewhere for it to go, and this was the best thing I could think of. I welcome other suggestions, of course. Everyking 15:23, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I also want to say that the sort of comparative reasoning you put forward is very flawed&mdash;we would not object to almost any number of articles on Chinese history, I imagine, provided there were people to write them. Well, it isn't my fault they haven't. I would like to see innumerable articles on Chinese history, I'd like to see every significant thing about it we know of documented here, but I can't take on that task. If someday Chinese history has 300 good articles, will you express regret for not letting me work on a handful of Ashlee Simpson-related articles? Everyking 15:28, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think we really ought to argue as little as possible on VfD, so I don't want to take much space, but I would like to point out that my criterion was notability of this album's design. Is the particular design of this particular album by this particular artist a stand-out among all other albums? The problem of subjective criteria is interesting, because what we ought to be asking is not "interesting" or "notable" for the author, but whether it is notable to researchers.  Further, is it verifiable?  Further, is it a secondary account rather than a primary?  Further, is it something that can be completely covered?  Finally, I personally ask whether it's duplicated by more natural research media (the Ashlee Simpson website, e.g.). Geogre 19:04, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * This article is a joke, right? No one would seriously write an article describing in great detail every photo on an album. DELETE. Merge a sentence or two back in to the album article. I really don't care if it's too long, or if they "flay you alive". You made this mess, now deal with it. Clearly "someone" wrote way too much detail on a famous but hardly historic album. Who could that someone be? If you want the album article shortened, I'd be happy to shorten it, believe me. Seriously, just because you can think of something to say about this doesn't mean it has to be added to wikipedia. Keep the shrine in your home. Encyclopedias do not go into excessive detail; that's what makes them encyclopedias. That's why we have a section in the Roman Empire article on the fall of Rome, rather than 3 volumes covering a thousand pages as Gibbons wrote. Obviously there's a hell of alot more we could say, but we don't. -R. fiend 15:46, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Obviously we have a philosophical difference of opinion about the project. I don't think that warrants such incivility. Everyking 15:51, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I think you're missing the point here. Are people up in arms because the album article is too long, or because there's too much detail as evidenced by its length? Since they aren't threatening to flay anyone alive over the Adolf Hitler article or any of the hundreds that are longer, I strongly suspect it's the latter. TOO MUCH DETAIL! You said above "people have expressed very strong opinions that it should be condensed". Well you did just the opposite: you expanded it and tossed it all over wikipedia. I'm sort of suspecting you wrote this article just to make La La seem reasonable by comparison, and its almost working. And if I may rant a little longer here I annoys me when people respond to VfD's like this with comments such "How nice of you to give me 10 whole minutes". Would you have deleted it yourself after 11? If not then time shouldn't be an issue. Usually such arguments are for giving time to let an article grow. Well, growing is just the problem. This topic has grown to an enormous proportion already. We have many other album articles on wikipedia, take a look at some others to see how shorter, saner articles can be written. -R. fiend 16:23, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * You are of course aware of the guideline that breakouts are supposed to be created at some point around 30KB, if not sooner. I have no further response to make to this. Everyking 16:28, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I say Delete. The information could easily be condensed into one or two sentences, which should then appear as the caption for the album's image on the album's main page. I believe that there is virtue in being concise; the thin blade of a sharpened knife cuts deeper than the face of a cloud. Furthermore I do not believe that any single album cover deserves an entire article to itself; not even time-tested legends such as 'Dark Side of the Moon', 'Disraeli Gears' or 'She's So Unusual'. Perhaps the works of Blue Note records or Hipgnosis' designs might warrant an article as a whole. This affair is an interesting test case, however - would we all view Everyking more sympathetically if the album in question had been 'Kind of Blue' or London Calling? - Ashley Pomeroy 16:59, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Would we? Not really. London Calling already has a good article, and if Everyking had written a simialrly styled article we wouldn't be having this discussion. And London Calling is a far more important album than Autobiography; it's been ranked high on many lists of greatest albums of all time, and was greatly influential in the merging of reggae and punk, among other things. And it has an album cover about which something could actually be said, as opposed to the completely mundane seen-it-a-thousand-times-before picture of the singer on the cover that we have with Autobiography. Who's interested in this sort of article? A few of Ashlee Simpson's fans (and yes, there are many). Ashley Simpons fans who own this album and do not need us to describe what it looks like to them. Unless they're blind, and until wikipedia-braille is released this won't do them any good either. -R. fiend 17:15, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: another waste of resources. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:13, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * hehehehe, text 1.8K, image (already used on other page) >50K. Ok sure, the text is wasting resources by over an order of magnitude less, let's do the wise thing and delete the text but keep the image. (note: light sarcasm here:) ) Kim Bruning 03:36, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Strong delete... Wikipedia is not an art class. Crush and kill all fancruft!  --Idont Havaname 18:35, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Merge into the main article. The 32kb rule is not written in stone. - SimonP 18:54, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. My opinion and reasons have already been stated by those voting above. Gentgeen 21:46, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is ridiculously unimportant. It's a simple description of what pictures appear on the album cover.  Anyone who's that interested in Ashley Simpson to be reading this article probably already owns the CD. - Lifefeed 22:07, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Excessiveness.  RickK 22:46, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
 * Merge/redirect or delete - this is far too much extraneous detail. -Sean Curtin 23:26, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: I never said it was the world's greatest idea for an article. I just said it was the only way I could think to deal with the particular situation I was facing, and that there's nothing so terribly wrong with it that it should be deleted. As I have before, I invite suggestions about what I can do with the content. Everyking 23:32, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * (1) Trim it. (2) Move it off wikipedia and then link to it. (3) Just break the 32KB guideline. It is also disengenous of you to suggest here that you are open to suggestions, when people tried to help you trim the album article you reverted their edits. - Drstuey 23:54, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I meant suggestions that don't involve deleting good content. But in this case I would even be willing to consider losing some of this content, if someone had a good idea. Everyking 00:06, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Everyking, I've read the Talk pages of this and the album, and it's abundantly clear to me that you consider every scrap of data, every word, every POV assertion you've written to be "good content". As you wrote above, But for God's sake, there isn't anything extraneous! Hence, you're being disingenuous here.
 * Pick the least important stuff (even YOU have to acknowledge such a hierarchy exists) and kill it, or let someone else with some degree of perspective do it. --Calton 00:46, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * This is not "good content". It describes the album cover. You can get all the information available in this article by simply looking at the cover! The cover of "Unknown Pleasures" has an interesting story that is explained in one sentence. This one isn't worth a sentence. Delete this and trim the bloated article on Ashlee Simpson. Dr Zen 00:29, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete: I've got nothing against Ashlee (I don't believe I've ever heard any of her songs), but lets be realistic. Most people who have bought this album will be embarassed to own it in five years time, and it will be a dime a dozen in second hand CD stores. That's the way of most popular music: who still plays their MC Hammer and Vanilla Ice CDs? The rare artist who remains popular for 30 or 40 years, such as The Beatles or The Rolling Stones can have the depth that they've earnt. If we descend into this level of triviality for artists that nobody is going to care about in a decade, it's just going to make wikipedia look like a collection of pointless facts. If Ashlee proves to be the rare exception that maintains the public's interest for decades to come, then she can have all the articles you like about her, as there will be something of substance to put in them. Until then, trim back the main article. Shane King 00:54, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * I've already trimmed back the main article, and that's as much trimming as can be done. If the vote is to delete, I'll merge the most important content back into Autobiography (album) and try to find a place for the rest, but I don't know if I'll be able to come up with anything. Note that this wouldn't be nearly such a big issue if I hadn't been pressured to condense the content by certain users who shall remain nameless. In case of deletion, it will at least be preserved at User:Everyking/Autobiography album design as a storage place for the information for future reference. Everyking 01:10, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * It's a little disingenuous for you to blame this whole mess on pressure from "certain users." You have an obvious option which you're ignoring here: Stop creating new Ashlee Simpson articles. Rhobite 02:28, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * I suppose that is an option, but in this case, for reasons I've explained, it seemed like the most reasonable thing to do. Autobiography as a subject is only going to keep growing. Everyking 02:54, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Only if you let it keep growing without pruning. We're supposed to be editors here. The most important function of an editor is not deciding what to put in, it's deciding what to leave out. Shane King 03:51, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * It appears we have a philosophical difference of opinion, then. I don't believe things can be worthy of inclusion one day and not worthy the next. Everyking 03:56, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll be blunt. The real problem is that some things are not worthy of inclusion to start with. Autobiography is too new to write at length about and still be meaningful. What bands has it influenced? What has it changed in the music industry? Who knows, because it's just been released recently. So instead of concentrating on the big picture, instead the article is filled with trivia, because there's no big picture to write about. So if there's a philosophical difference, it's that I don't think the meterial needs to be there yesterday, today, tomorrow or ever. Even if Ashlee becomes the most famous recording artist to ever live, most of what's there now will still be trivia and still not worth the space. On the up side, at least there will be worthwhile information to fill the space then. Shane King 04:16, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * Huh? Man, I'm just trying to provide people with info about the music, its critical reception and the various things that are closely related to it. It would be nice to have that stuff about influences and such someday down the road, but that's very much secondary. Everyking 04:23, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete this nonsense. Rdsmith4&mdash; Dan | Talk 01:16, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete in the name of sanity. Next we'll be having articles about pop stars' new haircuts. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway Talk]] 03:09, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Part of an Aggregate, Keep or Delete all. Um she's kinda cute though. :-) Kim Bruning 03:27, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * All...what? All Ashlee-related content? Everyking 03:33, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * It was split off from Autobiography, so it should be kept or deleted as if it was a single article. (I don't believe in merge :-P ) Kim Bruning 03:47, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, but it needs more detail. For instance, you forgot the colour and brand of her lipstick and nailpolish in each picture.   The Steve  09:18, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * I ask that you take these votes seriously, if you're being sarcastic...maybe you're not, but I believe those things are pretty trivial, supposing it was even possible for me to find that info. I only want people to be able to get a general idea of the album's design to complement the description of the music, not to include every detail under the sun. Everyking 14:59, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Hah! Like I take anything at wikipedia seriously.  Anyway, my vote stands.  If we can vote to keep a description of a fictional substance based on another fictional substance that appeared maybe three times in a TV series, then we can certainly keep a description of an actual piece of art that employed at least 4 people to create.  Wikipedia - More trivia than any other web site  The Steve  06:11, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete The article is well written, but I feel that resources shouldn't be spent on album design articles. User:FLafaire\FLafaire 07:37, 30 Nov, 2004
 * You mean human resources, or computer resources? Everyking 06:51, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep Tuf-Kat
 * Delete and pre-emptive delete of upcoming article Ashlee's 2005 MTV Awards Outfit. Really, this album doesn't need dozens of thick articles, just one condensed well written one. sunbird 15:51, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Hows about a broader article on her Ashlee's whole wardrobe? Just think, Ashlee's favourite designers, annual clothing budget, outfits spotted in, casual vs. formal wear, types of shoes and accessories and what she does with the old clothes.  Only one small section need be dedicated to the MTV Outfit.  I'm sure an Ashlee fan could whip one up in no time. :>  The Steve
 * Merge and redirect. At first I was tempted to vote keep, but there is no reason why the album's article can't be long if it well organized.  That's what the table of contents is for.  --L33tminion | (talk) 20:51, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Should be a sub-section of the album article - and that's all. I voted keep on La La, but this is too much. Ambi 01:18, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Ditto, delete. Songs can make very good inependent topics, but this is stretching quite a bit. Cool Hand Luke  01:40, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm gonna have to go with delete on this one. I can understand an article on a song, etc., and a notable album cover, certainly, but this album cover amounts to nothing more than a photo shoot. We don't have articles on photo shoots, do we? In fact, they're not even mentioned in their respective subjects' articles. I don't think that the fact the photos were printed in the sleeve notes makes them any more important. - Vague | Rant 09:28, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)