Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Torchwood: Original Television Soundtrack - Children of Earth

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2009 August 2.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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 no consensus. (X! · talk) · @837 · 19:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC) Per this discussion at DRV the close has been overturned to delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Torchwood: Original Television Soundtrack - Children of Earth

Per the PROD tag which was deleted with no explanation by an IP. ╟─Treasury Tag►ballotbox─╢ 19:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I only got as far as "is an upcoming album" before I decided to !vote delete.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:45, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 19:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 19:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "an upcoming" is three days as of my writing, as in July 7. Yngvarr (t) (c) 19:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you planning to list some reliable third-party sources to establish notability, then? ╟─Treasury Tag►consulate─╢ 20:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Yngvarr (t) (c) 20:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that helpful reply. I presume that you actually have no real reason to keep the article, then, since you have declined to provide one, and refused to justify the page's notability... ╟─Treasury Tag►co-prince─╢ 21:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing uncivil about that reply. You seem to like to swing that phrase around, as you've tagged a missing edit summary as being uncivil. My reasoning is stated in my original comment. Would you have rather preferred me to ignore your query? That would have been uncivil. Yngvarr (t) (c) 21:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer you to explain your reasoning as to why/how the article meets the notability guideline. You have not done so. Your "comment" was "an upcoming" is three days as of my writing, as in July 7 – I don't even understand what that's supposed to mean, but it certainly doesn't have anything to do with the notability guideline, which is the issue at stake here. What third-party sources back up the article? Without suggesting some, how can it meet the guideline? And, for your information, deleting a PROD tag without a reason (for that matter, reverting someone else's good-faith edit without a reason) is considered incivil. ╟─Treasury Tag►assemblyman─╢ 07:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Soundtracks are rarely notable enough for their own article and I see nothing that makes this one notable. No indications it is notable, the only third party source is Amazon (so it could be advertising), almost no info other than the track listing. TJ Spyke 21:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable soundtrack, the only content differing between this article and the subsection in the parent article is the date of the physical media release and a tracklisting. treelo _radda 21:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Torchwood: Original Television Soundtrack to create a "Music of Torchwood" page. Since the first article is apparently fine. Pdb781 (talk) 16:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested PROD, I'm sure if I tagged for the deletion of the other soundtrack article there'd be the same situation. Saying "this other related article hasn't been deleted so this shouldn't either" isn't the best argument for a merge of what doesn't amount to much more than the tracklists of two non-notable soundtracks. treelo _radda 15:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable soundtrack. magnius (talk) 12:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And you've listened to it to decide that? With the events of Day Four, you may be surprised by Fandom's reaction to Merchandise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.225.200 (talk) 15:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Only because its counterparts are allowed to stay. 86.139.225.200 (talk) 13:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a very good reason, they could end up deleted for the very same reason as this. magnius (talk) 13:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OSE – I suggest that that deletion argument is ignored. ╟─Treasury Tag►senator─╢ 13:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is still part of the New Who Soundtrack family and should have exactly the same treatment. It has more tracks than any other album and is a source of information for users. This is such a facade. There is no credible reason to delete it. It hasn't even been released. And if it is deleted, on 27th July, people will create the article over and over again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.225.200 (talk) 15:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Articles have to have reliable, third-party sources to back up their notability. This is not negotiable. The other articles do (the other Torchwood soundtrack an exception, and it's nominated for deletion too). This doesn't. Why shouldn't we delete it? ╟─Treasury Tag►without portfolio─╢ 17:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you're doing this because you don't like this page for whatever reason. I'm a third party and I'm backing up its notability. 86.139.225.200 (talk) 19:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt "like" has anything to do with TreasuryTag's opinion. The only reasons you've given to back up what notability this release has are that "the fans like it" and "it's bigger" than other related soundtracks also with inherited notability. If you can explain why this or any other Who/Torchwood soundtrack is notable reliably then please do so. treelo _radda 20:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anything I say now won't matter because you don't want to gather information and store it; you don't want to keep things that one day may be really useful to some historian in the future. Instead you want to delete it as if it doesn't even exist. You've misunderstood. It deserves the same treatment as its Doctor Who counterparts. And why don't fans matter? And what are your arguements against its notability? I've heard none, other than it's because Amazon have it on their website. 86.139.225.200 (talk) 23:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, prove why these soundtracks are notable reliably, fans do count but not as a source they're too biased to be reliable and onus is on you or anyone else interested in keeping the article to demonstrate notability seperate from the television show. treelo _radda 00:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See, because you're part of the establishment, it is very easy for you to say "Oh, that doesn't count". You haven't answered my question. I've already shown how it is notable. 86.139.141.144 (talk) 10:42, 11 July 2009 (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.