Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Simpson TRL Stats


 * 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 was Delete.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)   10:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Jessica Simpson TRL Stats
unnecessary article; author keeps removing the speedy deletion templates. --Spring Rubber 17:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * "unnecessary" is not one of our Policies and guidelines. Uncle G 17:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm no policy expert, but look at that. It's just a bunch of pointless stats about how many times songs were played on a TV show. Surely some criterion would cover that? --Spring Rubber 17:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Are the statistics verifiable? Are they original research?  You should be looking for, and asking for, sources. Uncle G 18:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete&mdash; Speedy deletion seems appropriate. Even in the broader sense of an enccylopedia, this appears a stretch. Williamborg (Bill) 17:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No speedy deletion criterion applies to this article. (It was nominated as "no context", but there was and is plenty of context in the very first sentence of the article to work out what it is intended to be about.)  Without that, your rationale is empty.  Please explain which of our Policies and guidelines this article contravenes. Uncle G 17:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge content to Jessica Simpson unless I'm missing something. Regarding Uncle G's very sensible question, I would suggest the content probably isn't sufficiently notable to be worthy of its own article. Addhoc 18:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Regarding Uncle G's comment, the number of times a song is played on a call in tv-show is non-encyclopedic content. KnightLago 19:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Untrue. It depends from what sources exist.  If the number of times that a song is played is something that is discussed by many people and the subject of much literature, then it most definitely is encyclopaedic.  On the other hand, if this article is the result of a Wikipedia editor counting the number of plays xyrself and reporting the result of this firsthand primary research, then it isn't.  As I said, the right thing to be doing is not asking onesself "Do I think that this belongs in an encyclopaedia?" but asking "Do sources exists for this?  How many sources are there?  How extensive are they?  Who wrote them?" Uncle G 19:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and/or merge into Jessica Simpson. I agree with Addhoc that this content doesn't meet the notability standard to have an entry all its own. Baseball,Baby!   balls  •  strikes  20:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Is not interesting to regular people. It's not a speedy, though. Danny Lilithborne 20:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * "Not interesting to regular people" is not a deletion criteria. PLenty of things in wikipedia are interesting to only a minority of people, but we keep them anyway.  WP:NOT paper. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Violates WP:OR and WP:NOT. It's minutiae too trivial to deserve a Wikipedia article of its own. wikipediatrix 22:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as a collection of indiscriminate information. Wickethewok 14:47, 28 August 2006 (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.