Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nelly Furtado extended discography

From 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. Pigman☿ 01:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nelly Furtado extended discography

Nelly Furtado extended discography (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article is chart-cruft, list-cruft, fancruft. There is already an article on this artist and a discography page for her. This is excessive, not needed and sets a very bad precedent for "extended" discography pages for countless other artists. There are formatting problems (such as boldfaced chart positions, which go against WP:NPOV) and all these are minor music markets at best, which go against WP:CHARTS, and the album and song descriptions are redundant and already explained in other articles. From what I can recall from past pop-music-related discussions, isn't there also a POV problem with the separation of various countries into different tables too? Worst of all, I see no reliable sources anywhere. (Note I've copied most of this text from my response within the article's Talk Page.) - eo 01:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Much of markets in that article make up less than 1% of the music industry. WP:UNDUE says "Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all." So there's no need whatsoever to give as much weight to those minor countries as say the U.S. or the UK. Besides, Nelly Furtado discography is close a featured list. This will set a very bad precedence for other pop musician discographies. Spellcast 02:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. This article looks more like a fansite than an encyclopedia article. And while there is nothing wrong with supporting and reveling in an actress' success, this article doesn't have an neutral tone. And as eo said, references are missing from this article. I really don't see an encyclopedia article here.--Mumia-w-18 02:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge into Nelly Furtado discography.
    • I reread the content of the article and could find no "revelry". On the contrary, I found it difficult to identify the bias that is claimed to be there. Could the previous commentors cite the lines that show bias?
    • A fan site is characterized by "excessive trivia and irrelevant praise, criticism, lists and collections of links" (see Template:fansite), but I couldn't find any of that on this page. Bear in mind that Wikipedia guidelines differentiate charts from lists.
    • I haven't been able to find a guideline on "chart-cruft" anywhere. Could you cite the link?
    • WP:UNDUE is misapplied here because this article does not "compare views." As previously noted, the article seems to be pretty objective. The charts may cover "minor" music markets, but a typical Western bias is represented when it is claimed that the only charts that matter are the US and Europe, especially considering this artist's relationship to South America. That kind of discrimination is forbidden by WP:BIAS, which states that articles must "represent a worldwide view of the subject." (Even if WP:UNDUE applied, it's been proposed to give no coverage at all to the rest of the world. Can most of Asia and all of Africa and South America really be considered a "tiny-minority" view?)
    • The article is not properly cited (like most articles on Wikipedia), but no attempt was made to tag the article first. WP:GD states "before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD." No attempt was made to do so. I don't edit this article, but if you look at the history, one person routinely does. Was any attempt made to alert that user that the article needed improvement?
    • Don't get me wrong, I believe extended discographies are unnecessary. There is no reason why two pages need exist. But isn't the more readily employed solution to merge the two? Bsherr 03:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment - there is nothing to merge - the main discography page is comprehensive enough. Putting long album descriptions in a discog page is redundant - all of that text is already within the albums pages, which are wikilinked. In fact, I reverted the "merge" you went ahead and performed anyway, which consisted of taking almost ALL of the text in the "extended" discography and placing it into the main discography. - eo 12:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment - I presented that as an illustration. The deletion guide permits a merge during an AfD to demonstrate effect. I meant to note it in my comment. As you would have seen, it doesn't substantially depart from the content and balance of the existing discography. Perhaps the content describing the albums is redundant with the album pages. Isn't the solution then to merge it with the album pages? Why are we so quick to delete without considering alternatives? Also, are you able to cite that chart-cruft guideline? I want to read it to make sure I'm not saying something wrong. Bsherr 18:43, 15 November 2007 (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.