Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of accolades received by Folklore

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 merge‎ to List of awards and nominations received by Taylor Swift. The overwhelming consensus is that this article shouldn't be retained and should be merged selectively into this target. Daniel (talk) 10:27, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of accolades received by Folklore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is WP:CFORK from List of awards and nominations received by Taylor Swift and should be redirected. I see no reason to have this list as a standalone list. Ippantekina (talk) 07:55, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Awards, and Popular culture. Ippantekina (talk) 07:55, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:49, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:15, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per WP:SUBARTICLE:

  • This covers different ground to List of awards and nominations received by Taylor Swift, as it's accolades not awards, ie. List of accolades received by Folklore also includes critics end of year lists which aren't included in the former.
  • This could be merged into Folklore (Taylor Swift album), but this would tip that article over a WP:SIZERULE guideline. It's linked from that article instead of being included there.

Jonathan Deamer (talk) 12:01, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Revising to neutral having had a helpful discussion on this exact topic kindly pointed out to me. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 18:48, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - to the parent awards article or the parent album article. If it's too big for either of those locations, then we really need to think about whether all of the awards are notable too - some trimming may be in order. Theres really not much (any?) precedent for an album having its own awards spin-off. It's overkill. Sergecross73 msg me 12:56, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  What on earth are these comments? "Need to think about whether all of the awards are notable"? Are you kidding? Why the hell are you applying what is meant for entire article topics to individual details. Individual details do not have to be notable. Look at the citations and list. They are ALL to reliable independent sources. There is not one accolade list with a [citation needed] tag. And "overkill" based on what? Users complained about it being overkill on the main article, which is why this split happened. For a separate article, this is perfect. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 15:07, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you cool it with the WP:BLUDGEONing a bit? I don't understand what you're so baffled about. This is no different than the routine debates on whether or not a song article should be spun out from an album article. Completely valid editorial decisions are being given here. Sergecross73 msg me 15:25, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  No bludgeoning is going here. Users are giving different comments and I am giving different responses. That is just discourse. Can you cite me any "completely valid" argument for the merge votes? With due respect I am not seeing them. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 15:29, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It's a very short list. 14 awards. Single lines of content. And there's actually two different targets where it could be placed. If you can't tell how this fits into multiple aspects of WP:MERGEREASON I don't know how to help you. Sergecross73 msg me 15:34, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Are you even reading the full page? That is obviously wrong. There are also the critical accolades, which are 82. 82 + 14 = 96, basic math. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 15:38, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The critics list is collapsible and is closed at first, so I do not blame you if you did not notice right away. But at the same time, you should know better. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 15:39, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, you are two numbers off the awards list. There are 16 awards, not 14 awards. Not a big difference, but I just want the participants' available info to be as accurate as possible. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 15:40, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The 14 was in reference to what was visible. The 96 is exactly what I was talking about when I said we should evaluate if all of these are truly noteworthy to document. Sergecross73 msg me 16:11, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  All of the publications listed are notable enough to have Wikipedia articles to link to. There you go, evaluation finished. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 16:29, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  We're both experienced editors - don't waste both of our time acting like it's that simple. Mainstream commercial releases could have 25-50 RS reviews. Are we compelled to add every single one to review table templates? And include everyone single one in prose? And if it's too crowded, do we spin them out to Critical reception of Taylor Swift's ''Folklore'' album articles? Before you decide to waste our time further, the correct answer is "No". Sergecross73 msg me 16:53, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Serge, I am being extremely nice here when I say the following:

  • (1) Ippantekina nominating this for AFD in the first place was a waste of all of our times. I did not want to have this talk either, but here we are, so lecture Ippantekina on waste, not me.
  • (2) This is not debatable. This is how Wikipedia works: Yes, we absolutely, 100%, without-a-question-or-doubt, do! Per WP:WEIGHT. And frankly, there is not enough of them.
  • (3) If there was that much coverage to represent, there would be only one critical reception article of the album, not articles, so don't be ridiculous.
  • (4) What on earth is it with experienced users like you, who at least know a lot of policy, promoting what would essentially being giving WP:UNDUE to a small fraction of sources?

  User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 17:13, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, and almost forget. Ratings of review are absolutely not the same as rankings of year-end lists of the best albums of the entire year. I should not have to explain why. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 17:25, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  There is absolutely nothing that compels us to list off every single "best of" award every publication rattles off for a given artist. That is an extremely flawed application of WEIGHT/UNDUE. Sergecross73 msg me 17:55, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Every time a publication ranks an album or song one of the best of the year, that counts as WP:SIGCOV. Not covering that sigcov means Wikipedia has failed at its job. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 18:19, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You can not just discredit the reliability of the source by using specific rhetoric: "every publication rattles off for a given artist." This further proves my point WP:IDONTLIKEIT is driving your argumentation. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 18:51, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This is awful policy interpretation. I think the only thing we're going to agree on is that experienced editors will continue to disagree with you. Sergecross73 msg me 20:34, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This is not interpretation, it is the truth. It is how this works. Leave or write on Simple English Wikipedia if you do not like it. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 21:01, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not only an interpretation, but an exceedingly rare interpretation. I've edited in music and video games for coming up on 15 years and I rarely see editors make such outlandish assertions in either content area. Sergecross73 msg me 01:16, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep as a creator. None of the critical accolades are in the article Ippantekina mentioned, so this is not a CFORK, and frankly, that awards and nominations list has more than 600 entries and could be split. If all of these were too much to list in the main topic article, then newsflash, they should be in a separate article. There are more than an hundred of these awards and accolades for this album alone, cited to reliable sources. They are all from publications with editorial standards, and deserve to be represented for proper WP:WEIGHT. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 01:32, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonathan Deamer: @HumanxAnthro: Not all critical lists are notable and worthy of inclusion. Please see this discussion at WP:ALBUM for more details. I see no need to have a Wikipedia list including each and every year-end album rankings like this one, and the industry awards are properly covered at List of awards and nominations received by Taylor Swift. Ippantekina (talk) 02:34, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Facepalm* Can you at least know what you are talking about before you type out what you are going to type out?:
• (1) Users, can you please, for the love of god, stop using WP:IDONTLIKEIT as a rationale? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, meaning we let all independent reliable sources do the writing for us. Who cares about your personal interests or some arbitrary metric of what you think is "needed"? I guarantee you if we followed that, the article count on this whole site would be zero.
• (2) The discussion was for lists of year-end rankings being too much in articles mainly about the album that are already long with other details, not whether every year-end ranking was worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia at all (including on a separate article), so it means nothing here. This is not opinion: we should make separate lists simply because it is too much for the article.
• (3) Individual details do not have to be notable. The topic has to be notable for an article to be written on it, so your claim that "not all critical lists are notable" means nothing.
• (4) All those reliable sources, which are many, run year-end rankings of the best albums. Any source from an industry source with editorial standards of verifiability and expertise IS "worthy" of inclusion, and anyone who says other does not know what Wikipedia is.

User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 14:57, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HumanxAnthro: You clearly haven't even read this discussion and it shows... Ippantekina (talk) 02:33, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 14:18, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ippantekina I hadn't seen this discussion; thanks for pointing out. That's a helpful consensus that it's difficult to disagree with, so changing my "keep" response above on this basis. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 18:41, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to List of awards and nominations received by Taylor Swift. Raymond3023 (talk) 05:01, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. If kept it needs to be renamed, as the album is not the primary topic for Folklore and the current title makes little sense. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:43, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wut? You are not making sense. How does the title not make sense? User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 14:59, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    It doesn't make sense as in when someone who isn't a Taylor swift fan looks at this they'll think they're talking about something like rewards received by "The Odyssey" or something. Additionally, you are fighting against the consensus of over 15 editors, who all agreed that it was unnecessary to list every single award/accolade that something won. Industrial Insect (talk) 16:51, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • (1) You have not been on this site long enough then if you are confused. Look at this search and come back to me later.
    • (2) I keep having to repeat myself because users here repeatedly say the wrong thing after debunking it. I am not "fighting" against consensus of the existence of a list like this. The consensus was that it was overbearing for the size of the main album article to list every accolade, not if those accolades meet some bullshit, not-based-in-policy methodology of "needed".
    • (3) Even if that was the consensus, so what? They are objectively wrong.

    User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 17:19, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Are you actively suggesting it's acceptable to ignore consensus you don't agree with? Sergecross73 msg me 17:56, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Are you honestly suggesting any of the arguments in that discourse were valid? "Waaahhhh, it is too much effort for me to read"? "Album ratings are as significant as year-end rankings"? "Publication year-end lists are the same as clickbait"? Serge, this is not "consensus I don't agree with". This is Wikipedia's principles being decimated in front our of eyes. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 18:21, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Cite me the guidelines where content can be removed because a user was not literate enough to read it, and I will gladly change my !vote. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 18:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    No consensus is being ignored by making a separate list. They were talking about lists within album articles. Can you stop being wrong so I do not have to sound like a broken record? User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 18:36, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I didn't say any of that...? Sergecross73 msg me 20:35, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    (1) I don't understand what the link you provided me proves. Yeah, other "list of accolade" articles exist (Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS), but I was talking about the song name being confusing.

    (2) We are saying that a merge is needed. Your only argument is that the article would be too long. The consensus is to limit the number of accolades mentioned in the article to solve this.

    (3) I don't think you have any right to call me an amateur when you think you can ignore consensus because you don't agree with it. Industrial Insect (talk) 18:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • Let me correct myself. I thought you were confused by the wording of "received by". I did not initially interpret you being worried the title was so vague it could refer to Greek literature. Sorry about that. However, this is still ridiculous because the name Folklore is italicized in the title, meaning it is referring to a specific full work titled Folklore.

    User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 18:30, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, can you not dishonestly represent what I am saying? My arguments are abso-fucking-lutely not only that I think the article would be too long. It is that all the coverage for the accolades are reliable and deserve representation, regardless if a person who did not finish middle school care about it. You are all throwing obvious WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions and calling me unable to disagree civilly for calling them out, and it is absolutely disgusting. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 18:33, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of awards and nominations received by Taylor Swift. Correct me if I'm wrong, but all of the awards listed here seem be listed at Swift's accolades article. I'd say that we shouldn't have the exhaustive list of year-end rankings per WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Anything noteworthy can be put on the main Folklore article. Pamzeis (talk) 13:54, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you explain further on what WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTEVERYTHING has to do with this? I see a lot of users who cite WP:INDISCRIMINATE to remove reliably-sourced, cite content, but do not go past that. I could nominate every single article for deletion on this website under "Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE" and it would make just as much sense. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 14:21, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  To put it another way, you can not just say info should be removed because we are an not an indiscriminate collection of information and expect me to buy it right away. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 14:26, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Good point. Equally open to a redirect. Sergecross73 msg me 16:17, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, nominator. Bit of a though exercise. If I nominated the entire Taylor Swift article and others that currently existed for deletion under the rationale: "Who the hell cares about some stupid pop star? We are not an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of information, especially not artists only teenagers are into", would you just civilly disagree with me, think I have a different edit philosophy and move on with your day, or would you accuse me of editing in bad faith and call me a moron? I would love to know. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 18:33, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like to muse about hypothetical WP:POINT violations with the nominator, they have a talk page for that. This has nothing to do with this AFD. Sergecross73 msg me 18:56, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It does, because all of this is based on a discussion where that hypothetical is suitable. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 19:02, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge the awards section to List of awards and nominations received by Taylor Swift, leave out the Critics' rankings section. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:41, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge content back to Folklore (Taylor Swift album), as it was before it was spun off. Rfl0216 (talk) 20:52, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge no rationale for keeping bar an absurd application of WP:WEIGHT. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:14, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral comment The article creator, HumanxAnthro, was indeffed for partly-related incivility against Sergecross73. Nate • (chatter) 02:58, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. If this means the bloated reception list needs to be trimmed, then so be it. WP:ASPECT means we have weight specific coverage by how important it is with respect to coverage as a whole. There's no way every single one of these accolades is noteworthy enough to mention, for the same reasons we don't have articles covering every government leader's canned condolence statement for every natural disaster.

JoelleJay (talk) 03:46, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to List of awards and nominations received by Taylor Swift, it listing all awards and then which albums won them and in what years. If the Critics' rankings section of this article is notable, then just have it, or create an article with the critics' ratings for all of her albums int he same format as the list of awards article is. Dream Focus 16:06, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge (selectively) to List of awards and nominations received by Taylor Swift. In the process, trim non-notable awards from both this list and the existing list at the target article. Not everything needs to be listed, per the various policies highlighted by voters above including WP:CFORK, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Listing every single not-so-newsworthy award is yet another manifestation of obsessive Swifty-ism too and runs afoul of WP:FANCRUFT. I also recommend ongoing disciplinary review of the loudest "Keep" voter above. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:26, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  HumanxAnthro was given an indefinite block. Dream Focus 18:17, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, I'm glad I didn't continue to add gas to the fire then. Industrial Insect (talk) 19:13, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - Merge the relevant accolades into the parent list and album articles. I would favor deleting this afterwards instead of retaining a redirect, since the title is not adequately disambiguated and could be used to refer to accolades received by one of the other Folklores.--NØ 16:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to List of awards and nominations received by Taylor Swift, per the above. There’s no point in creating multiple articles dedicated to awards earned by a single person. Wikipedia is not fan-based content; we create articles suited for a general audience. Also, most, if not all, of the article's listed awards and receptions is pasted from the original album article (Folklore (Taylor Swift album)). HarukaAmaranth ^春_香 00:12, 24 December 2023 (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.