Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meghan Trainor discography

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 Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 05:01, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Meghan Trainor discography

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Creation of this article is drastically premature and a result of WP:FANCRUFT by User:MaranoFan. Trainor has released four albums, but only one is a major record released with chart and sales info. The other three are just blank. Trainor has only released three singles, too. Her discography is far too small to warrant a separate, standalone article. This article should be deleted and a simple table for both albums and her few singles should be included on Meghan Trainor and Title (Meghan Trainor album). Sales and chart info are present on Title (Meghan Trainor album), "All About That Bass", "Lips Are Movin" and "Dear Future Husband" in the form of tables and prose anyway. Article is currently nominated for FLC, but it clearly fails 3B of the FL criteria "In length and/or topic, it meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists; does not violate the content-forking guideline, does not largely duplicate material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article." I laid out these issues on the Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Meghan Trainor discography/archive1 nomination, and two other editors concurred with me (Winkelvi and Chasewc91). I have also raised a similar issue with regard to WP:FORK and WP:FANCRUFT by the same user on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Title (EP). — ₳aron 10:27, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SUPPORT: I've seen larger discographies listed on artist pages, agree that one studio album and three singles shouldn't constitute as reason for a separate page. don't see any issue with a merge to Trainor's main page. Azealia911 _talk 11:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You support this article being deleted, but you've also pledged your support to see it promoted to FL status on the Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Meghan Trainor discography/archive1 nomination? If you're supporting to see the article deleted, then you will have to strike your support for promotion to FL at the very least. — ₳aron 11:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She has released 4 studio albums, nevermind that three of them were non-notable, they still deserve to stand on its place. There are smaller discographies than this on Wikipedia and they still exist. In my opinion this should stay. — Tom^(T2ME) 12:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see little difference between this and Lorde discography. Someone want to enlighten me? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:29, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As opposed to my prior comments, there are similarly short discographies, some are even featured, like the one mentioned above. Most of the singles/albums are certified. Azealia911 _talk 14:00, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She has multiple studio albums, one of which has charted, and multiple charted songs. There is enough content to justify a discography. If you feel it's better merged into Trainor's article, start a merge discussion rather than a deletion discussion. Reach Out to the Truth 14:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can't see why this should be deleted. HĐ (talk) 14:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a notable artist it seems, with extensive discography. No reason to delete. mb12427 (talk) 12:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems perfectly fine to me, passes WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing any decent reasons as to why you are all voting keep? Reasons such as "I see little difference between this and Lorde discography. Someone want to enlighten me?", "Most of the singles/albums are certified.", "I can't see why this should be deleted", "This is a notable artist it seems" are not valid reasons. Can we start employing some Wikipedia rules and guidelines please? I have quite clearly stated that it fails section 3B of the FLC criteria, which none of you address. — ₳aron 18:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I disagree with your opinion that it fails 3B. It has enough detail for a standalone list and the parent article would not be served by a merge. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:26, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain to me how one album with charting info and three singles equates to being enough detail uses criteria and guidelines please. — ₳aron 18:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"One album with charting info and three singles" I think you mean four albums, two EP's, three lead singles, one featured single, five other charted songs, guest appearances, writing credits and music videos. Azealia911 _talk 18:33, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't. The other three albums have no sales, charts or certification info at all and add nothing informational. Two of them don't even have articles. Even still, her discography is tiny and it is being forked. It's nothing that other articles don't already cover. — ₳aron 18:38, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think the fact that the whole 'other articles already cover this information' point is a justifiable reason, if we took that approach with all discographies, we could nominate almost all of them for deletion. For example, take Katy Perry's at random, this article adds only tiny scraps of information that's not presented anywhere else. All of the albums, reissues, live albums and EP's have independent articles relaying this information listed, same with all of the lead, featured and promotional singles. The only new information on that particular discography that isn't on any other article is the charting positions for the 3/8 "other charted songs" that don't have independent articles. The fact that 'other articles already cover this information' really isn't much of a strong argument. Azealia911 _talk 18:46, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a community guideline on what a discography must contain? If no (and FLC is irrelevant when deciding a list article is kept), then I'm looking at other similar lists to see what the community has decided is appropriate. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:47, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A discography doesn't have to have only successful albums with certifications and sales in order to exist. Having enough material (even though most of it unsuccessful like here) is enough for having a separate discography. — Tom^(T2ME) 19:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as meets GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 22:52, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please be more specific. — ₳aron 23:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Either keep or merge/redirect per WP:ATD. I see no valid basis for deletion when there are clear alternatives. Even if a standalone list is premature at this point (and on that I have no strong opinion either way), there is a lot of good, usable content that would need to be merged back into the parent article, and a non-trivial edit history which could form the basis of a more viable article in the future. PC78 (talk) 23:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This has to stop; whatever issues the discography community has with MaranoFan, nominating an discography they worked on just because they attempted to delete others is just petty, no matter how much they've pushed the community's buttons. Did you attempt to work this out with MaranoFan through talk and the many other venues that exist before AfD? I don't really see that, and there's enough here that justifies the breakout into an individual discography. I also fail to see how this violates 3B outside of making the main article a little cleaner to read with this break-out here. Work out your issues with MaranoFan however you need to, but don't drop a WP:IDLI nom because you don't agree with their ways (note this isn't agreeing with MaranoFan in the slightest, but just my observation on what I've seen as a regular on AfD). Also as I've learned in the past from my own noms dealing with inane children's network detritus, WP:FANCRUFT is an inappropriate reason to nominate an article and not set policy; please change your rationale. Nate • (chatter) 23:59, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.