Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Title (EP)


 * 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 keep. § FreeRangeFrog croak 19:22, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Title (EP)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

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 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 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)


 * "Both Title (EP) and Meghan Trainor discography are Trainor fan creations by MaranoFan." Except neither were created by MaranoFan...  Azealia 911  talk  12:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * He made it a GA, though. —  ₳aron  18:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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.  Azealia 911  talk  20:50, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

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)
 * Still, the album is the more notable release, and this EP article just regurgitates that info. —  ₳aron  18:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * My argument is not based on notability. Reach Out to the Truth 00:19, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Reach Out is correct; if text was copied, at the very least a redirect (with history) needs to be left, so that attribution is available. This could be more explicit, but it's implied at WP:RUD ("If an article is deleted, its history is removed and thus its content cannot be reused on Wikipedia") — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:36, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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.  Azealia 911   talk  14:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I haven't got a dispute with MaranoFan, and never have. Please don't imply that. — Calvin999  19:08, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


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


 * 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)
 * Keep per Colapeninsula, Snuggums and Azealia911. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Sometimes people simply happen to change their signature during ongoing events, nothing of concern here. Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 22:42, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * it just seems confusing...--BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:06, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not. — <b style="color:#595454">Calvin999</b>  07:27, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * ????? you clearly are. Both  ₳aron  and <b style="color:#595454">Calvin999</b> go to the same user page. Also, Aaron/Calvin999, please do not delete the talk page comments of others, as you did here --BoboMeowCat (talk) 13:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes you are. Why deny it? Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 14:13, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * My signature doesn't say it anymore, so no, it's not. No one ever mentioned anything to me in more than 3 years of using Aaron. I've changed it now, that's all that matters. And I don't know what your diff is meant to show?? I didn't delete anyones comment. Assume good faith please. — <b style="color:#595454">Calvin999</b>  14:36, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You did change your signature. Plain and simple. You did. You also did delete several comments, even if it was an accident. If you want us to assume good faith, please don't tell us that you didn't do things you clearly did do. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 20:07, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - Snuggums' sources are more than enough for me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:32, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment note that the nominator attempted to remove Crisco's !vote and several other comments. It is unlikely that it was an edit conflict, since the previous edit had been almost two hours earlier. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 14:13, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I never deleted anyone's comment! I don't know what that diff is mean to be showing! — <b style="color:#595454">Calvin999</b>  14:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:#595454">Calvin999</b>, It shows you removing 906 bytes, of which a users !vote was included.  Azealia 911  talk  14:40, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * But I didn't delete anything! All I said was "I'm not". I really don't what has happened, but I never selected or highlighted anything to remove! Not that anyone cares, apparently I'm already convicted of it. — <b style="color:#595454">Calvin999</b>  14:49, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You weren't already convicted of it, it was simply highlighted that an edit under your name removed a users !vote, which is obviously unacceptable, but if you say you didn't mean to, you didn't. We all make blips and mistakes. Apologize and move on.  Azealia 911  talk  14:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I already am at ANI by MeowCar and Crisco. I've been given a bad faith warning by Cirsco. I'm being ganged up on at ANI. But none of them are talking to me, just amongst themselves. — <b style="color:#595454">Calvin999</b>  15:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I, myself am not going to get involved, this whole situation seems to stem off into various different topics and users so I'm just keeping clear, but if removing the !vote was a legitimate mistake, just voice that, apologizing would be a good start.  Azealia 911  talk  15:04, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not apologising for something I haven't done. I should be apologised to for being chatted shit about! — <b style="color:#595454">Calvin999</b>  15:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It may have been an accident, but the dif definitely shows that it happened. Look at the view history. Your account made an edit that removed 906 bytes of information. Somehow, it defintely happened. Beyond that, no need to take it so personally, no one's said anything about it other than it happened, and due the timing, an edit conflict was unlikely. Sergecross73   msg me  15:16, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * There's no doubt that you did do it, but whether you meant to or not. There's proof that you did it, and the other users are not "chatting shit" about you, they're reporting a violation of policy that you committed, don't demonize them for following guidelines on how to respond to disruptive edits.  Azealia 911  talk  15:17, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * But I never deleted anything! I just typed a two word reply!! And yes people are chatting shit about me, I've seen it with my own eyes. — <b style="color:#595454">Calvin999</b>  15:19, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Read the diff. The content was deleted by your edit. Even if it was an accident, it still happened. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 20:15, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * On my talk page, Floquenbeam has suggested a way it may have been done accidentally. Calvin, this is the same distinction I made on my talk page: just because you didn't do something deliberately, doesn't mean that you didn't do something. If you read up on law, compare mens rea to actus reus; it's a similar distinction. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - Ludicrous nomination. The EP itself has received plenty of significant coverage dedicated to it specifically, so it meets the GNG. Very straightforward. I don't know what it is about Trainor that makes people so irrational, but here we are again. Sergecross73   msg me  14:55, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge — Merge the article into the main album, Title (Meghan Trainor album).  livelikemusic  my talk page! 16:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not really the main article. They do share songs, but these are two different albums, with different release dates, and these respective albums charted differently.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 17:15, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * On what grounds? You're an experienced user, so you must know that this isn't a vote, and that you have to explain your stance for it to hold any weight in the discussion. Sergecross73   msg me  18:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep - Per everybody who !voted Keep above. This has to be one of the most ridiculous and laughable AfD nominations I have ever seen. 'Nuff said. Interlude 65  (Push to talk) 05:29, 10 May 2015 (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.