Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rankings and achievements of Taylor Swift

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 delete. Swarm we ♥ our hive 05:43, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rankings and achievements of Taylor Swift

Rankings and achievements of Taylor Swift (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 is simply listcruft. A bunch of these rankings (such as Askmen and 4Music) aren't particularly notable, and much of what is actually notable (such as Billboard and Forbes) can be covered within Swift's main article and/or her song articles (sales records, music video details, etc.). Snuggums (talk / edits) 12:43, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The nomination effectively argues against deletion by by suggesting some of this content can be covered in other articles. If there's worthwhile sourced content here (which, among the less good stuff, there is) then it should at least be merged to other articles, which isn't going to happen if this is deleted. --Michig (talk) 12:47, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some of it already is covered in other articles, so this doesn't necessarily argue against deletion. Besides, users can always move content to other articles before deletion. Snuggums (talk / edits) 12:53, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you think there's *anything* that could usefully be merged to another article you should withdraw the nomination and start a discussion on the article's talk page. --Michig (talk) 15:59, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • First of all, another user has already voted "delete", so too late to withdraw anyway. Secondly, pretty much all of the noteworthy content is already contained in other articles. Third, even if this was to be merged, I can't think of a good target for that. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:09, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • AskMen & 4Music aren't "particularly" notable? Then explain to us why it has its own Wikipedia article and why does Billboard make article about them? Mat 1997 (talk) 10:06, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • The reason those specific rankings aren't very notable (if at all) is because of questionable-at-best reliability. There is consensus that listings from unreliable sources are not notable and therefore should not be included in articles per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:47, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • Snuggums, what sources are you referring to? most of the sources I see are from Billboard which is highly reliable. Yes, there was one source from Celebuzz (which I replaced), but that doesn't make the entire article unreliable. דיידרים (talk) 14:26, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                • In terms of citations, things like Daily Mail, 4Music, and Huffington Post. Not sure what to say about Nova FM, Cutting the chai, "torontopics" or Frontier Touring. As for organizations themselves that listings are from, that would be Askmen (likely user-generated), 4Music, maybe Singapore FHM. Other listings are for trivial details like "Best Dressed" or "Celebs Gone Good". Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:48, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Snuggums, it took some time, but I replaced all the problematic sources. Is it Okay now? thank you very much, דיידרים (talk) 19:33, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Commendable, but the bigger issues are A) the organizations themselves are dubious/questionable and therefore their listings shouldn't be included in the first place (i.e. Askmen and 4Music listings shouldn't be mentioned at all), B) All the noteworthy pieces are already included in other articles, making this page an unnecessary WP:CFORK to begin with. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:47, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Any article about a person is mainly about that person's achievements. Borock (talk) 14:44, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
but if the article about the person gets too big we tend to split of content like this to a separate article. --Michig (talk) 15:59, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per Wikimandia. Awards and the like go on the award page. Calidum T|C 05:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Striking my vote. I'm no longer sure this should be deleted, per Liz's comment below. Calidum T|C 22:57, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. First of all, these were previously seen in the List of awards and nominations received by Taylor Swift page. But, FrB.TG believes that these entries should be in the parent article. However, the latter cannot accept the revision since it was too big. The former cannot have it back too since it is currently a featured list candidate and cannot go through inconsistencies. These are worthy achievements of Taylor Swift and "MOST" of these cannot be seen in the other articles. This page shall go under revision and not deletion. Just give the article a chance. Mat 1997 (talk) 12:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously an exhaustive list would be overkill for either page. However, as I previously stated, just about all the notable stuff is already covered in other articles. Since Wikipedia is not an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of information, the non-notable listings have no benefit. Keep in mind that her some of this is already in her song articles. All in all, nothing beneficial about this list since it's a bloated WP:CFORK. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was a prior discussion regarding the listing of her achievements in her awards page here. I suggested that these achievements should be in her parent article but it would be too big, and would not add value. Since this is records on charts and some other achievements of her work, I thought their respective articles would be the best place to add e.g. if "Bad Blood" has set a record, it should be in the "Bad Blood" article, not in her awards page or her parent article. That said, I would like to stay neutral at this point and see what others think about it. -- Frankie talk 15:43, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Frankie, now that List of awards and nominations received by Taylor Swift is a FL, can it accept these entries? דיידרים (talk) 10:39, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument for AFD's because one cannot determine the notability (or lack thereof) for an article solely based on whether or not other articles are notable. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:57, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The articles in that category are titled "Lists of awards and nominations...", not "rankings and achievements of..." — and List of awards and nominations received by Taylor Swift already exists anyway, which means that Taylor Swift already has the article that would fit into that tree, and doesn't need this to coexist with it. Bearcat (talk) 17:48, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, Bearcat, and I have struck my original comment. Thanks for pointing out what I overlooked. I now agree with those arguing that any content that is appropriate should Merge with List of awards and nominations received by Taylor Swift. Liz Read! Talk! 10:23, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge into List of awards and nominations received by Taylor Swift. Most of the "Rankings" entries are unique to this article, well-sourced and notable (given by notable enough to have Wikipedia article, but also read this RfC), so it isn't WP:CFORK. As for the achievements, I support moving those that are about her songs and albums to their articles, leaving only those regarding Swift herself and those who can't won't fit in the other articles (i.e. "most-awarded person in Teen Choice history"). The data in this article was was removed from the "List of awards" and was suggested to be moved into Taylor Swift, who could not accept it because WP:TOOBIG. Then it was suggested to be moved back to the list who could not accept it because it was a featured list candidate and could not accept new entries which will make it inconsistent. It simply fell between the cracks. דיידרים (talk) 03:11, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. List-cruft. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:57, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  17:21, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rankings and achievements" articles are not a thing we do on Wikipedia — "list of nominations and awards" is, but that article already exists and we definitely don't need both. Redirect to List of awards and nominations received by Taylor Swift — anything appropriate for inclusion in that article which isn't already there should be added to it, but a lot of this is just listcruft that isn't encyclopedic anywhere. Bearcat (talk) 17:46, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a thing we do? Not all artists need this specific page. Plus, List of awards and nominations received by Taylor Swift can't have too much entries since it is already a featured list. Yes, some here already exists in other articles but most of it cannot be seen out there. Take a look at the article entries first. Mat 1997 (talk) 10:09, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the question is, do All awards and achievements by Taylor Swift have notability independent from Taylor Swift herself? Has her number of awards broken records? Has her achievement outclassed others who have also achieved a lot in the entertainment industry? If the answer to those questions are no, then the awards and nominations can't have a standalone article. "The number of awards are too great for the article" argument doesn't save this article from the requirements of the WP:GNG. References list her awards and rankings but I don't see references where the sum of her awards and the quality of her awards are being discussed as the main topic of section/article. So, as the references to the article stands, there is no independent notability. For a wikipedia article to grab every award she's ever had and then saying 'this is notable' amounts to WP:OR original research. A WP:RS must discuss her sum or list of awards to verify notability of this sub-topic for it to remain a standalone article. AadaamS (talk) 18:49, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you misunderstand the notability criteria. It is common when articles get too large for parts to be split off into separate articles. In these cases there is no requirement for the split-off content to itself satisfy a notability guideline. The question is really whether or not there is any encyclopedic content here that doesn't already exist in other articles related to Swift, and if there is, how that should best be organized. --Michig (talk) 10:17, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi Michig, I disagree with your interpretation of the GNG, article content only has to be verifiable, not notable. Once a lump of an article content is to be split out into a standalone article, suddenly its inclusion criteria have become stricter. There is nothing in the GNG which says it doesn't apply to each and every standalone article. In fact it mandates that if an article needs to be split, each piece split out needs to itself be GNG notable as well. This will prevent editors from creating articles like List of shampoos used by Taylor Swift simply because such information could be verified. So the GNG should be consulted when organising material about TS and splitting articles imho. AadaamS (talk) 17:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not sure that WP:GNG actually says anything specifically about content split out from parent articles, but common sense should suggest that if the content would be appropriate in the parent article then it is still appropriate if split out to a separate article for reasons of size. --Michig (talk) 18:21, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • We're not after common sense, we're after encyclopedic sense and that's what the GNG is about. Lists of awards and achievements by an entertainer also isn't included as a suitable topic for a list according to WP:SALAT. My argument of course becomes moot if RS sources verify that her list of rankings and achievements reach GNG notability. AadaamS (talk) 18:35, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • Per What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, we shouldn't have excessive listings within articles Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:39, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • Hi @Michig:, in fact the GNG does say that the list subject must be notable as a group, see section WP:LISTN of the WP:GNG. AadaamS (talk) 10:42, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                • As I previously stated, it says nothing about content split off from a parent article due to size considerations, and as I also previously stated I don't think there's much argument in favour of keeping this article as it is anyway - the question is really whether there is anything here that should be retained and where we should put it - keeping the whole thing and deleting the whole thing are not the only options here. I find that when 'Wikipedia sense' diverges from real world sense is when we have start to have real problems in this project. --Michig (talk) 13:24, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Quite right it doesn't list any exceptions due to size and so far I can't see that it lists any exceptions at all. Of course content from this article might be merged elsewhere. This article could also be userfied as an interim solution. AadaamS (talk) 14:00, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Its a content fork and frankly borderline fancruft. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 06:28, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete awfully painful fancruft. Half the listings hold no notability whatsoever, do pieces of information such as the fact that Taylor Swift was ranked #1 on the "4Music Pop Powerlist 2015" (I don't even understand what they're ranking) really need an independent article? Or that some old lady clinging onto a career in journalism labeled her the third most interesting person of the year? (Barbara Walters's 10 Most Fascinating People of 2014) Grossly trivial list. Azealia911 talk 00:57, 31 July 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rankings_and_achievements_of_Taylor_Swift&oldid=1140561072"