Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Meghan Trainor discography/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was archived by Crisco 1492 08:28, 7 May 2015.

Meghan Trainor discography

 * Nominator(s): All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 17:37, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe I have worked hard on it and it satisfies most of the criteria. All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 17:37, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Quick comment I don't think that the track listings for pre-breakthrough albums are needed. Instead they can be added on a future List of songs recorded by Meghan Trainor. HĐ (talk) 07:11, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support A comprehensive list. Good work! HĐ (talk) 08:48, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I will add the track listings back. Consensus at the recent deletion discussion for the "List of songs recorded" article was to merge the contents to this article. Specifically, two editors agreed that the track listings of the non-notable albums should be included here. –Chase (talk / contribs) 16:19, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - Seems to pass Featured list criteria.  CookieMonster755   (talk)   03:05, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Quick comment: Writing credits need sourcing, and although I see it's not essential to have on a discography, I see Trainor has no videography, would it be worth adding her music videos?


 * Apart from that, Support, can't see anything that would hinder this from meeting criteria, great article.  Azealia 911  talk  13:43, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Comments: I have replaced the superior lead paragraph wording that was implemented by but removed by another editor.  The better wording mentions the article subject, while the inferior wording mentions Trainor first.  The reader's focus should first be on the article subject.  Have made some wording simpler (we are supposed to write for readers in such a manner that the average 6th grader can understand it), removed a redundancy or two, fixed some punctuation.  Removed WP:OR and WP:SYNTH peacocking not  used by or verifiable through reliable references.  Question: Is there precedence for the nomination of such a short list article with its sub-subject being a brand-new recording artist with only one major-label album?  Time will tell if this article is a viable candidate, I suppose. -- WV ● ✉ ✓  15:43, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ariana Grande discography is an FL with two albums, Lorde discography is an FL with just one major-label album. This article is definitely a viable candidate. This is not a random decision, you have to put a support vote if you support or give something to improve on. All About That Bass</b> (<b style="color:Blue">A word??</b> / <b style="color:Purple">Stalking not allowed...</b>) 15:46, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't "have" to do anything. You wanted comments (see here ), I provided some.  See WP:NOTCOMPULSORY. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  15:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm impressed with how the article has shaped up. Just the lead section can have some c/e by a GOCE member, and it should be fine. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:02, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The lead was just copy edited by a member of GOCE and looks great now! <b style="color:Red">All About That Bass</b> (<b style="color:Blue">A word??</b> / <b style="color:Purple">Stalking not allowed...</b>) 20:11, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Because the article is up to my expectations, it has my support. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:54, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * It's been four months since the Spotify Sessions album has been released; why isn't it available for sale in those regions? Shouldn't those just be ndashes if they didn't chart?
 * Spotify albums aren't released for sale on a whole. It's a streaming service, accounts are created and used for free, there's no transaction fees involved. See Lorde's EP's for example.  Azealia 911  talk  13:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If it isn't for sale, why wouldn't you move that note to the "Sales" column and add "—" to the "Peaks" section, as it didn't chart anywhere? Seattle (talk) 17:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Because there should be note to make readers aware that the project wasn't available for sale, as opposed to have them think that it was, but failed commercially, as you may well have from your original comment on the situation.  Azealia 911   talk  17:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Never mind, misunderstood your point, doing what you suggested now!  Azealia 911  talk  17:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * On second thoughts, changed it back, the EP was released in all countries, but not for sale, only for streaming purposes. The note below the section states ""—" denotes items which were not released in that country or failed to chart." but the EP doesn't fit into any of these categories.  Azealia 911  talk  22:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, the "—" means that the album didn't chart– which it hasn't. Its commercial status doesn't matter; it didn't chart. The note should be moved to the "Sales" section. Seattle (talk) 19:19, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose - I don't believe this is notable on the grounds that she simply hasn't released much music at all. As such, only one album has charting info, and only three singles have been released. Her discography is not notable enough to warrant a stand alone article. There was nothing wrong with including the Title charts table and a singles table in her bio, and a singles table on in the article for Title itself. Until she releases another album and has more of a discography, I won't be able to support this nomination. For someone who has only released one commercially successful album and three singles, the article looks very fluffed up to look more than what it is, such as including three albums which never charted anywhere. I don't want to be rude, but I think this unnecessary article is a case of WP:FANCRUFT. —  ₳aron  07:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You don't really need "commercially successful" albums to warrant a discography. Charli XCX has a discography, Lorde has a discography (which is an FL by the way), Carly Rae Jepsen has a discography, even Iggy Azalea has a discography (which is also an FL). There is a lot of support above. There is also consensus that Trainor is notable enough to warrant a discography. As for your accusations of CRUFT, I don't see anything of that sort. But I respect your opinion, and if you think there is cruft, please point it out so I can remove it. Trainor has four, reliably sourced, albums. <b style="color:Red">All About That Bass</b> (<b style="color:Blue">A word??</b> / <b style="color:Purple">Stalking not allowed...</b>) 10:04, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * What I mean is that the first three albums have 0 information with regard to charting, sales and certifications, so the reader doesn't actually gain any information about them at all. With regard to those singers you mention, I have just explained why I have given my oppose in comparison on my talk page (for anyone else reading this, see User talk:Calvin999.) My comment about fancruft is more to do with you as an editor rather than the list, specifically. I often see you being warned about edit warring on Trainor-related articles, and I believe that this very short, not detailed and 'un-comprehensive' list is a creation of your fandom, which I do not mean as an insult in any way, shape or form. —  ₳aron  12:04, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I am going to let the closer make the call on this one but I essentially see no reason as to why you would consider a 4-album list fancruft. There is clear consensus for the discography's existence. Although, all I can see is that there is nothing here that I can improve upon so... <b style="color:Red">All About That Bass</b> (<b style="color:Blue">A word??</b> / <b style="color:Purple">Stalking not allowed...</b>) 12:07, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course, it is ultimately up to whether the closing delegate decides if your supports provide solidarity in opinion to outweigh my oppose, or if my oppose brings up issues of notability which outweighs those supports. Again, I'm not saying that a four-album discography is fancruft, I'm saying that the creation of the entire list in the first place is what I believe is fancruft. There's no denying you're a Trainor fan, and I think you have prematurely created this list with what is a very, very small discography which I don't think is notable at all because you're a fan. You're not quite understanding my point on that. There are things you can improve on, it's not a perfect article, but I'm not going to list everything that needs correcting or changing when I don't believe the list should even exist (yet). And there are quite clearly a lot of issues, per the editor's comments above. —  ₳aron  12:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, it's not the fact she has a large discography, it's the fact she has a large main article. Her article would be too large then. And you can't claim fancruft on me, as I actually dislike her music, not even tolerable to me. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 13:08, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a moot point to make, and I'll explain why. Meghan Trainor article is not large at all. It's actually very short. If someone like Trainor had a large article for what a little discography she has and her age, then something would be wrong. If you think Meghan Trainor is large, then I'd like to know what you think Mariah Carey's is, or Celine Dion's, or Beyoncé's. Trainor's discography would be far better suited to being in Meghan Trainor. That's why it's a moot point. (And I'm not sure why you're making a point on me "claiming fancruft" on you). —  ₳aron  13:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose per . Nom is premature as article shouldn't exist -- his Captain Obvious comment that this article exists as a result of fandom is right on.  It's already been nominated for deletion once, unsuccessfully so.  While the article is now well-written, construct isn't the problem: one major label release and three singles doesn't make for a discography with notability.  Should be a part of the Trainor article and definitely shouldn't be a FL candidate. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  15:30, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose at this time per 's comments. I will add that his concerns are particularly relevant to #3b of the featured list 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."
 * "meets all of the requirements for standalone lists" – The notability guidelines for standalone lists require that the list topic be "discussed as a group or set [emphasis not mine] by independent reliable sources." Has Trainor's discography as a whole – not just "All About That Bass" – been discussed extensively in reliable sources? It would seem doubtful given that she's only distributed one album in wide release and she hasn't even been famous for a year, but I'm willing to be proven wrong on this.
 * "does not violate the content-forking guideline" – ✅
 * "does not largely duplicate material from another article" – ❌ Almost all of the content in the lead is included at the main Meghan Trainor article.
 * "could not reasonably be included as part of a related article" – ❌ Trainor's article is not that large. A few extra tables wouldn't hurt it IMO.
 * I appreciate the work that has been put into this, but sorry, not right now. And, whether or not other similar lists should exist (or be FLs) or not is completely unrelated to this FLC. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:26, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Note This article is currently being proposed for deletion. (See discussion here: Articles for deletion/Meghan Trainor discography). —  ₳aron  10:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: The nominator has self-imposed a script-enforced wikibreak that will prevent her from editing until October. An early close may be needed unless someone else is willing to address comments and make fixes. –Chase (talk / contribs) 16:45, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * With several outstanding opposes and the nominator gone, I don't think there's much of a reason to keep this open. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.