Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thumbelina (soundtrack)

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 keep. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thumbelina (soundtrack)[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.

With all fairness, I could understand how one could argue the song's Razzie nomination would make this topic significant, as not only is that a major (albeit comedic) award it is also the only time in history before The Emoji Movie anything animated was even Razzie-nominated. However, that only gives the song itself significance, and even then there isn't anything to find for that. Other coverage is one Allmusic rev, a self-published fansite, and retail pages. That does not establish WP:SIGCOV 👨x🐱 (talk) 14:22, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:35, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Difficult one to search due to the name, but on newspapers.com I found sigcov in the Town Talk (31 March 1994, page 26), Pasadena Star-News (18 March 1994, page 70), and, just barely, the Los Angeles Times (17 April 1994, newspapers.com insists it's page 347 but I'm not sure that passes sanity-checking, and it appears to be split across several pages). This is in addition to the Razzie stuff (which comes up in places like here and here) and coverage of multiple songs at once (e.g. here), which as you note is easier to source on non-archival online sources. Vaticidalprophet 15:45, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't find the newspapers.com articles, but are you sure they're specifically about the soundtrack? EW.com only discusses one song for a paragraph, with only that Razzie-nominated song as a honorable mention. Also, is Rotoscopers.com a HQ reliable source? 👨x🐱 (talk) 12:16, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can't find the newspapers.com articles, but are you sure they're specifically about the soundtrack? The Town Talk piece is literally a two-page spread about its recording. newspapers.com is theoretically paywalled, although accessible through The Wikipedia Library. This is what I meant at the time about the issue with having nominations so close together even if they're unbundled -- I've done BEFORE on three of the nominations and found two of them had sigcov that wasn't found already. There are 31 nominations. You're a reasonable and likable person, I know you have no intent to foster that workload on AfD !voters, and I know you in all likelihood genuinely didn't realize that !voters need to do their own BEFOREs rather than taking the nominator's for granted and that anything before really about 2005 has way, way more accessible on archival sources than the open internet. I don't know who's going to comb newspapers.com for the remaining 28, and I don't know if it's me. (As for HS RS, the HS is a FAC standard, not an AfD standard. I'm not sure I'd use it in an FA, but they have editorial control and appear to fact-check.) Vaticidalprophet 13:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Honestly, what's the difference between high-quality and reliable? Wouldn't it automatically be unreliable if it was low-quality? I really don't know why there's two separate distinctions. 👨x🐱 (talk) 14:52, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's not a distinction I'm sold on either, but I suppose there's a point to "let's use what the books say before what the news says, and what NYT say before Vice says" at FA level, even if it's a bit of a blunt instrument. Vaticidalprophet 14:54, 25 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) 15:10, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in agreement with Vaticidalprophet above, and kudos to that voter for the search of obscure 1990s newspapers. I was able to track down a couple of those myself, and extracting some album-specific content from them would help improve this album article. There is also some minor coverage of the Razzies "awarded" to contributors, see e.g. [1]. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:24, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am not withdrawing the nomination, but I am changing my vote to a Weak Keep or Merge to film artciles if those newspaper sources are about the music of the film. Given how little production info there is to find of this film (all I could remember finding was an interview from the Nostalgia Critic with Don Bluth, which I don't know if others would find a RS), It could just as easily be discussed in the film article 👨x🐱 (talk) 17:54, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep so that the article can be merged or kept as appropriate. I really think the content should have been merged to Thumbelina (1994 film) and this AfD nomination should not have been made at all. A merge can be appropriate (as it is in this case) even if there is not notability for this as a separate article. Likewise, even if notability can be established, it can be editorially sensible to have a single merged article (as it is in this case). I expect I would have the same view on many (all) of this batch of nominations but it takes me at least 15 minutes to investigate each one and I don't want to spend all that time. We should not be deleting referenced material merely because we disagree with the pigeonholing. Thincat (talk) 10:04, 26 April 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.