Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Track 5 (Taylor Swift)

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 Taylor Swift#Songwriting. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 03:17, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Track 5 (Taylor Swift)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This concept started from fan speculations, and the article comes off as WP:FANCRUFT that entertains a specific portion of audience. I am not sure if this deserves a standalone encyclopedic article, given that Taylor Swift has talked about this concept only once, and the rest of the article can be considered WP:SPECULATION. HĐ (talk) 01:22, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. HĐ (talk) 01:22, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. HĐ (talk) 01:22, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is pure WP:FANCRUFT and a relatively marginal area that does not warrant a separate article. --Ashley yoursmile! 04:40, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Taylor Swift#Songwriting per HĐ- seems like a reasonable course of action now, since that has been suggested. Nonetheless, the article substantially WP:FANCRUFT and should be trimmed to include only the relevant content. --Ashley yoursmile! 09:13, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the significance of each individual track 5 can be covered on the respective album's page. There isn't enough of a running theme or correlation between these songs to justify taking them out of their albums' contexts and covering them here.--N Ø 07:05, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per Ashley, pure WP:FANCRUFT. Hulatam (talk) 09:12, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm going to go against the flow here and suggest that since I managed to clean up and expand the article from the multiple, independent reliable sources already there to beyond a stub level, there is a case for improving this article and not deleting it. For the record, I don't believe I have ever heard one note of Taylor Swift's music, so the FANCRUFT accusations honestly can't be levelled at me. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:59, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the "Track 5" concept is made up by fans--Swift has only confirmed this concept for her most recent albums. She has not elaborated on it as part of her career overall. No indication of its significance in her discography/songs. And this is not a fan-wiki to begin with. HĐ (talk) 13:12, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To note, even if this concept is verifiable, I earnestly think an article on this matter could constitute WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I do not believe a concept that is "a mythology she's built up with her fan base" is worth an encyclopedic entry. Even in the quote Swift said herself--she admitted she never had such a thing called "Track 5" in mind until it was started among her fans. Why an article on something so delicate that comes off as WP:FORUM or even WP:NOTGOSSIP? HĐ (talk) 13:25, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An indiscriminate collection of information would be something more like List of Taylor Swift's shoe collection. I think the real test (and something I touch on in User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to A7) is "can a neutral bystander improve the article", and the fact that I, very much a non-fan, have done so suggests that we can. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:30, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Taylor Swift. I think the concept is worthy of mention given that it has garnered independent coverage, but I don't think it deserves its own article (yet). It could be merged into the 'Songwriting' section, or perhaps get its own. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 13:28, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did consider as a first option to redirect / merge to List of songs recorded by Taylor Swift), but ultimately I thought there was too much to jam in there that didn't make it look lop sided. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merging it to Taylor Swift#Songwriting can be a good idea. This section details how Swift writes her songs and does mention specific themes/topics associated with each album. I cannot guarantee if everything should be retained, however. HĐ (talk) 13:53, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Taylor Swift#Songwriting - This is the best idea to come up in the discussion so far. Everyone above has valid points in many directions, but I find this suggestion (thanks to HD) to be the best way to save us from "no consensus" purgatory. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 20:58, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Taylor Swift#Songwriting per HD. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 11:48, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Taylor Swift#Songwriting: While it's good enough to pass WP:GNG, I believe it's best to discuss it in the target article per WP:SPLIT. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 12:00, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Taylor Swift#Songwriting per the above comments. I think that is the best route to go as I do not think there is enough evidence of significant coverage to warrant a standalone article. Aoba47 (talk) 01:20, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Taylor Swift#Songwriting (WP:CRUFT, WP:SIGCOV, WP:UNDUE) but don’t merge the entire paragraph, aka not this. It warrants a couple sentences, but I don’t think +1000 bytes is needed, especially since she talked about it one time. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 19:46, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. One or two sentences should suffice. Why putting undue weight onto something that Swift herself has barely ever mentioned? HĐ (talk) 01:40, 3 March 2021 (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.