Talk:Manic Dream Pixie (EP)

Do not reinstate redirect
you removed article contents for no valid reason at all despite the fact that the article was marked as a stub, therefore incomplete - the EP gets released in literally a few weeks and the artist in question has receieved significant media coverage. This is NOT okay and runs afoul of Wikipedia guidelines. You do not just do something without having a discussion first. It is severely inappropriate, not to mention severely disrespectful. Not to mention you broke several wikilinks by doing this. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 01:02, 9 April 2023 (UTC)


 * You need to learn WP policies and guidelines before you make statements like the ones above, which show your complete lack of understanding of them. Please familiarize yourself with WP:GNG, which this article does not come close to meeting. Onel 5969  TT me 01:08, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I've been an editor for over 11 years - I am well aware of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I do not appreciate being attacked - it is a very hostile response and one that is highly unnecessary. What you do not do is unnecessarily delete contents of articles without having a discussion - it is close to leaning towards potential vandalism even despite the guideline mention. Obviously there isn't going to be significant coverage of an EP that isn't even fully released yet. There isn't even that much contents on the article itself to warrant the "significant coverage" that you mentioned right now. Everything that is listed in the article is sourced, aside from the track list but that can be found on Apple Music, Spotify, etc - pretty much any platform that has the album available to view. Additionally, unlike what was said in the AfD, I did not admit to there being a lack of media coverage, just that due to the album's impending release there isn't currently a lot of information on it, which is why the article is a stub and why it should NOT be deleted. But there are however numerous mentions that detail the EP's impending release which is more than enough to warrant the article being created. Again, it is a stub article - not a full one, and with less than 3 weeks until it releases, there is genuienly no point to wanting the article deleted when there will more than likely be a lot more media coverage on the EP then. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 01:18, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

What should be done here?
Evelyn, the issue as noted in the deletion discussion wasn't the fact that the EP had not been released yet. It's that the content was considered insubstantial ("this should not be recreated without substantially better sourcing than is currently available"). You have restored the article in mainspace now that it's been released with barely any changes, despite taking Vanamonde's recommendation to copy-paste the content into draftspace at Draft:Manic Dream Pixie to work on it. You've also contributed to the draft today and requested speedy deletion, which was removed by QuietHere , who then requested speedy deletion of this page , which was just removed by an admin. The issues that resulted in the page being directed in the first place have not been addressed. Evelyn, there needs to be more substantial coverage of this EP in news sources before it is reinstated. I don't agree with QuietHere's claim-via-template that you copypasted the content of the draft, which was already a copy-paste in the first place, but this shouldn't be an article yet.  Ss  112   21:12, 28 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I added a Rolling Stone reference covering the EP in full - it wasn't just a standalone one and done mention. Rolling Stone is a substantial publication, and both of you would've noticed that had y'all bothered to check the edit history. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 21:14, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Honestly I am considering just no longer trying to contribute new articles to main space. I find these article creation policies to honestly be hostile to editors. What, does an article have to be in-depth now to even be added to mainspace? It was literally marked as a stub. It was meant as a starting ground where people can contribute to it. Most people don't know that the draft namespace even exists. And the Rolling Stone and NME sources were substantial. :/ - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 21:21, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I did check the page history. This looks like you copy-pasted the draft version over the mainspace article, because that's how QuietHere had formatted the citations on the draft version. You added two citations, fine, but the prose remains much the same. It shouldn't be an article until it's fleshed out more based on how the deletion discussion was closed.  Ss  112   21:23, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The citations were the same on the draft copy and the copy previously in main space - I checked. The only thing I added was the perfect for you thing. I reverted the article to its pre-redirect state first. And then I added the rolling stone citation.
 * There is NO reason for the article to still be in draft space. It won't get contributed to at all. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 21:26, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Honestly, do what you want at this point. I’ve decided that I’m not gonna try and add new articles to the platform anymore. Not worth the stress. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 21:30, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not here to debate the draft's existence. I'm saying this shouldn't be in mainspace yet. And please stop denying that you copied how QuietHere formatted the citations in draftspace back to here. The version of this article immediately prior to being redirected didn't have the NME citation as a "cite news" template nor did it italicise Manic Dream Pixie in the citation title. QuietHere did that when they made it a draft. When you restored the mainspace article today, this is you copypasting the draft's formatting of the citations back into mainspace. That shouldn't have been done either. And fine. I'll redirect this article. If you wish to work on the article, please do so in draftspace until another editor decides it's ready, then a merge can take place. Otherwise another editor will come along and redirect this article anyway citing the deletion discussion outcome.  Ss  112   21:31, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Ss112 Sigh. To say that im disappointed in this would be an understatement. The RfD didn’t take place due to a lack of prose…it was because of the lack of notable sources to back up the article’s existence, due to the sources not holding much weight. It was never because of the prose, or at least, that isn’t why the RfD was started to begin with…
 * I am angry and sorely frustrated. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 21:41, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You are resorting to "other article" arguments Yes, perhaps they do, but this article's notability was challenged and the article being redirected was decided upon by consensus. Respect that consensus unless you substantially alter the content. Editors are not going to care about the extra Rolling Stone source. They're going to see that you didn't add anything extra to justify it. Of course fleshing the article out matters, and it is your job to do so as the one who wants the article to exist in mainspace. If prose didn't matter to support the citations, articles would be accepted with a bare list of citations and nothing else.  Ss   112   22:08, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * every article I've ever worked on was able to exist in mainspace with no issues. It's this article specifically that was challenged, and that is exactly why I disagree with this. I feel like this article received special treatment in a bad way despite it being marked as a stub. The consensus was false, and I severely disagreed with it. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 22:13, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Nobody had it out for you or this article. It just happens sometimes. You are allowed to disagree with the consensus, but you have to respect it per WP:CONSENSUS. Otherwise your edits can be seen as disruptive and can get you blocked. Like your revert of me after saying "do what you want", then immediately reverting yourself. That seems WP:POINTy and I'd recommend you not do that.  Ss  112   22:17, 28 April 2023 (UTC)