Title (EP)

Title (EP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This article is clearly a case of WP:FORK. It is simply a regurgitation of Title (Meghan Trainor album), "All About That Bass", "Dear Future Husband", All About That Bass#Anti-feminism claims and Meghan Trainor, and is information already present in those more notable articles. I can't see how this even passed at GAN when this EP article is essentially what is already covered in the album article, two single release articles and her bio. This article should be deleted, and a short paragraph explaining what the EP is should be included as a section on Title (Meghan Trainor album). There is clearly some WP:FANCRUFT going on here, specifically with User:MaranoFan, which has already been outlined by myself and concurred with by two other editors on MaranoFan's Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Meghan Trainor discography/archive1 nomination. Both Title (EP) and Meghan Trainor discography are Trainor fan creations by MaranoFan.

WP:FORK in a nutshell: "Articles should not be split into multiple articles just so each can advocate a different stance on the subject."  — ₳aron 10:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Both Title (EP) and Meghan Trainor discography are Trainor fan creations by MaranoFan." Except neither were created by MaranoFan... Azealia911 _talk 12:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He made it a GA, though.  — ₳aron 18:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

90 different users and IP addresses have edited this page. Why is one individual's contributions relevant to this deletion discussion? Would you still support deletion if MaranoFan never touched this article? Reach Out to the Truth 20:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What's more, according to the page stats, MaranoFan isn't even the largest contributor to the page, Lips Are Movin has added over 70% of the text of the article, while MaranoFan only contributed 1.6%. Most of his edits on the page are cleanup or even removal edits, like this or this, so it's horribly unfair to scapegoat him in this, even more so with the fact that he has now retired and can't defend himself, even with us tagging him. Azealia911 _talk 20:50, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the Title (EP) was created before Title (Meghan Trainor album). If content was copied from the EP article to the album article, which is likely, it needs to be kept for attribution. Deletion should not be considered. Reach Out to the Truth 13:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Still, the album is the more notable release, and this EP article just regurgitates that info.  — ₳aron 18:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My point is attribution for copyright purposes, not notability. Which article really regurgitated the other? I haven't thoroughly checked the page history to find out because I find that extremely uninteresting, but if there was content copied from this article to another, we cannot delete it. Reach Out to the Truth 20:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is copied, but Title as in the album is clearly the more notable, perhaps parent even, article. What does this EP article tell us that the album and single's articles don't? Nothing. It's the same as those more notable articles.  — ₳aron 23:03, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My argument is not based on notability. Reach Out to the Truth 00:19, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I'm not seeing a coherent argument for deletion. How exactly does WP:FORK apply? What is the difference of opinion between the two articles? Forking is not the same as duplication: it means for instance if there's an article saying John F. Kennedy is a great president, creating another article saying he was a sex maniac and pervert. One article describes the chart performance, critical reaction, track listing etc of the album and the other does that for the EP; these are separate topics. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:45, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no difference between Title the EP and Title the album. The EP is just a shortened version with the same info in differently worded prose. So, that is forking content.  — Calvin999 18:14, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Proposal for deletion seems to come from dispute with another user, one who's now retired from Wikipedia, proposer seems to have flung together all the possible policies that could constitute deletion without actually backing them up, eg. how user MaranoFan working on a pre-existing article in aims to make it good is fancruft. Loosely expanding on what Colapeninsula said, this isn't one article that has been forked into two, the two articles are entirely different projects, that just share a title and some tracks from one are carried over from the EP to the album. Azealia911 _talk 14:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't got a dispute with MaranoFan, and never have. Please don't imply that.  — Calvin999 19:08, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe merge to Title (Meghan Trainor album). The EP article mostly contains details about its four songs, all of which appear on the full-length album. Perhaps a section about the EP with individual critics' reviews and chart positions could be made. As it stands, I don't think full-on deletion is necessary or appropriate. –Chase (talk / contribs) 16:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I have started a merge discussion here for anyone who is interested. –Chase (talk / contribs) 21:44, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - not a content fork. Has sufficient coverage in sources such as Stereogum and Knoxville News Sentinel, which both came before the full-length album or reviews for that were released. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:53, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Colapeninsula, Snuggums and Azealia911. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

question- for the user who apparently goes by both ₳aron and Calvin999. Why are you using two different signatures during one deletion discussion? This seems confusing for people who might think some comment in support OP are from a different user than OP.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:33, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not.  — Calvin999 07:27, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]