Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Music of Ooo

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 Adventure Time. Merge anything of worth to Adventure Time and then redirect. Missvain (talk) 15:51, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Music of Ooo[edit]

[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)

Was originally nominated as part of a bundle nomination of equally non-significantly-covered animated soundtrack albums, but commenters ignorant about the coverage of the topics tried to convince me they were somehow individually notable. The commenters used lousy reasoning, or WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, in trying to suggest certain topics in that nomination had individual notability. One suggested a couple of albums were by notable artists, which didn't make them notable as Notability is not inherited. Another agued "some of these articles are getting 100+ views/day", which is an invalid WP:POPULARPAGE argument. Another agued "Deleting the articles in question would delete the not insignificant article histories and revisions that could serve as rough drafts for future versions of these pages if they hold up to notability standards at a later date", which is invalid as most of these soundtracks never do and even so, we are not a WP:CRYSTALBALL.

For this album, only thing I could find on Google was this blog post. 90% of the cites in this article aren't about the album, but about seasons and episodes of the show that talk about songs and aren't even about the compilation. That does not satisfy WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Other cites about the album are just news announcements, or WP:PRIMARY sources, which are very reliable but don't establish long-lasting notability. 👨x🐱 (talk) 14:06, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:13, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep First, your diatribe in the opening paragraph here is unhelpful; kindly take the axe-grinding elsewhere. Second, what is imperative about deleting this page when it could simply be redirected? Third, the body of the article discusses the songs contained on the album. it's standard practice to have a section on articles about albums discussing the writing/production of particular songs; that's what is happening here.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 02:53, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- First, what did I say that was "axe-grinding"? All I did was give background to the topic's presence in Afd for other potential commenters to know about what arguments have already been made. I critiqued only the content; I never went after the editors.
  - "The commenters used lousy reasoning", "commenters ignorant about the coverage of the topics", etc. You're throwing indirect insults around, and I don't think that's very productive. These sort of discussion already have a reputation for being unnecessarily divisive, so I don't see reason to throw gas on the flame, so to speak.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:48, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - I will say I could've presented those comments better, and it probably didn't help I wasn't in a good mood that day. Also, I have been in other Afds that get pretty darn heated, so I understand the concern. But I don't see what's divisive about bringing up when others' argumentations are flawed or are to be avoided in a deletion discussion. Plus, I do regret saying the commenters were ignorant about the sources available; Vaticidalprophet, for example, has done a great job researching the sources in these AFDs, BTW ;). 👨x🐱 (talk) 18:32, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Second, "The body of the article discusses the songs contained on the album. it's standard practice to have a section on articles about albums discussing the writing/production of particular songs". That is not what I was criticizing. I'm arguing about the topic's notability, not what's in the article. I stated most of the "cites", aka the sources used for this article, weren't discussing the album at all, so it didn't establish notability for the topic of the album. If you want to have an article about the writing and production of these songs, a "Music of" article should be created to do that, something like Music of Adventure Time. That way, other music not featured in this album can be discussed as well, plus other releases of music from this show could be covered there as a discography list. Having an article presented mainly as about a release with only blog post and PR announcement sources isn't the way to go. 👨x🐱 (talk) 14:49, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - See, this is where I think this whole process is silly. I'm an active editor. Since I created this, why not reach out to me and discuss a better approach to handling it? Deleting the content just evaporates it into thin air, and poof there goes a lot of my hard work; you can probably see why I'd want to save it. A redirect, etc. would be far, far more productive, as it preserves the content in some form.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:48, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wanna know the harsh truth? It's really because the only way to get other users' attention to a discussion is through Afd. Nominating it a for merge (even if you notify the Wikiproject talk pages) will get it far less attention. 👨x🐱 (talk) 18:24, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There are some issues with the copy/pasted reasoning in the rush of 21 different AfDs for cartoon soundtracks by this nominator. In short, blanket reasoning for an attempted bundled AfD has been applied to every individual album therein. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Pebble and the Penguin (soundtrack) for more details. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:09, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The 'blog' in question is clearly a news site with editorial control. Not a spectacular one, but I'd option 2 it at RSN. Vaticidalprophet 15:34, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Partially Merge album-related info to Adventure Time#Related media, where perhaps a new sub-section could be created. While the nominator's introductory rationale for this AfD is a not very useful copy/paste from elsewhere, he/she actually made a better point in the later comment about how much of this album article and its sources are about other things. The article is bloated with fancruft about the show itself, while the album received little coverage as a stand-alone entity in its own right. However, there is some useful information on how the show's producers created and compiled songs throughout the show's lengthy history, and that can be discussed at the show's article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:15, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see how a production section on the individual songs qualifies as "fancruft." This is pretty standard for a lot of articles about albums.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:43, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just so we can find common ground, Gen. Quon, I actually disagree with DOOMSDAYER520 that info about the writing of the songs would be fancruft, especially when they're reliably sourced. I just think it's better in an article generally about the show's music and not one album. 👨x🐱 (talk) 18:40, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another quick point; merging to the main AT page doesn't seem like a good idea, as it would disproportionately focus on the music, rather than the show.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 19:46, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then make an "Music of Adventure Time" article as we do of the music of other topics, such as Music of Sonic the Hedgehog and Music of Final Fantasy. 👨x🐱 (talk) 21:05, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I still don't understand this: "the cites ... talk about songs and aren't even about the compilation." I mean, yeah, a song isn't an album, but the songs are on the album, so isn't that pertinent?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 19:46, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a notability issue, not a "what's in the article" issue. In most cases, there must be independent sources primarily about the topic itself to indicate the topic itself is notable. There's nothing wrong with using cites not mainly about a topic to fill in the pieces of the puzzle, but if that's the only thing to have, than it's just a essay of details about other topics. The fact that the songs would happen to later end up on a compilation does not give inherited notability to that compilation. 👨x🐱 (talk) 21:03, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:56, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm going this one more go around - any other ideas? Mergers? Etc? I'll end up going "no consenus" if I was to close this today.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 22:36, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Adventure Time. First, a note on process: Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap. I understand that you may feel the aforementioned bundled nom deserved to be treated en masse, but if others have any reason to disagree, then it isn't a good case for bundling. Precedent is made one AfD at a time, which can then be referenced in later discussions. That's simply a matter of procedure. But to the point here, this article topic lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources (?) and no one has raised additional sources. The standard course of action is to first attempt an alternative to deletion such as bold redirection. If/when that's contested, there are other ways to handle, but outright deletion of an album connected to a media property will rarely make sense because the title will almost always remain a viable search term worthy of redirection. So minimally merge any worthwhile sourcing in this case and redirect the title when ready. I would think that the parent featured article should have at least some mention of this release. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 02:14, 17 May 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.