433:. As the editor who authored the final quotation from the nominator's rationale citing the previous bundled AfD, I stand by my reasoning as to why the pages included in the original AfD, especially this one, which I have been involved in editing, should not be deleted outright. The article in question's subject is a real piece of merchandise, a soundtrack album for an animated television show with an existing WP article. The album's title could be used as a search term for either an article about the album itself, a list of spin-off media, or a redirect to the main series page. In the event that this page is deleted without redirect, the most appropriate article that it could have redirected to, being
540:. It doesn't need to be in main space." My point is that the article would be better off suited as a redirect in comparison to deletion. A redirect does not contain a draft and will most often contain only a link with possible redirect-specific templates below it. This solution would avoid deleting the article history and instead would preserve it in article history for that redirect. I do not understand why outright deletion is preferable to a redirect, so if you could explain that, I would appreciate it.
543:"Then provide evidence that it does." et al. I agree in the sense that this article could incorporate existing sources into its citations. A lack of references does not in and of itself constitute a deletion. Again, would you please explain why outright deletion is preferable to a redirect when articles on this topic already exist? —
279:
446:
policy, which deals with predictions, original research, rumors, unverified claims, speculation, data extrapolation, and future planned or expected events, as the article nominated is about a soundtrack album released two decades ago. Additionally, the nominator has written this AfD's reasoning in a
270:
argument. Another argued "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
441:
at a later date. (For the record, I do not agree that the article's subject does not meet WP's notability standards.) On a related note, I take issue with the nominator's assertion that "most of these soundtracks never do" hold up to notability standards because the nominator did not back up the
525:
I appreciate the feedback. That being said, I do not accept your insistence that I accept your negative language in the original post as good faith when that was clearly not your intention. Regardless of that, however, I will comment on your individual musings to my opposition.
447:
passive-aggressive tone, using words and phrases such as "ignorant", "tried to convince me", "were somehow", and "lousy". It is my opinion based on the nominator's tone that this AfD was made in bad faith, and I cannot support that type of argument. —
222:
361:- 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
437:, would not be the first page a user sees when searching for the album name, and all previous revisions and article histories would be gone, which would be a nonconstructive move in the event that this article meets the notability standards
257:
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
362:
156:
151:
160:
216:
183:
341:
143:
612:
582:
299:
254:
442:
claim with quantifiable figures or any other data. The nominator's reasoning about the article's subject not being verifiable at a later date is not supported by the reference to the
307:
469:"The article in question's subject is a real piece of merchandise, a soundtrack album for an animated television show with an existing WP article." That does not make it notable.
403:
sub-section. The track listing is probably not necessary, but the AllMusic review shows that the album got a little notice that can be mentioned at the show's main article. ---
262:, 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
259:
533:." That does not make it non-notable either. My assertion was simply that this piece of media exists in a tangible format. It was by no means my main defense against deletion.
147:
324:
139:
91:
476:"All previous revisions and article histories would be gone, which would be a nonconstructive move in the event that this article meets the notability standards
237:
204:
130:
115:
659:
639:
553:
512:
457:
425:
387:
350:
333:
316:
85:
198:
495:(not just giving it a passing mention), archive.org scans of print sources, newspapers.com urls, academic literature, charts, certifications,
194:
530:
470:
263:
244:
419:
381:
210:
110:
103:
17:
77:
463:
124:
120:
591:
568:
73:
676:
40:
415:
377:
508:
487:"For the record, I do not agree that the article's subject does not meet WP's notability standards." Then
295:
672:
443:
346:
329:
272:
267:
36:
648:
623:
434:
396:
53:
81:
230:
405:
367:
69:
504:
291:
99:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
671:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
635:
627:
578:
544:
500:
448:
287:
491:
that it does. Link me to independent sources, reviews (besides that
Allmusic page), books
266:. Another argued "some of these articles are getting 100+ views/day", which is an invalid
653:
608:
311:
58:
283:
63:
177:
631:
462:
In retrospect, I'm not a fan of how I wrote those comments either, but please
602:
363:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/The Pebble and the
Penguin (soundtrack)
667:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
594:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
571:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
342:
list of United States of
America-related deletion discussions
278:
For this article, only coverage is
Allmusic review and a
173:
169:
165:
229:
308:
list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions
480:
at a later date." Like I said, if this is a concern,
90:
651:. Nothing to merge. No sources to warrant a draft.
600:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
577:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
679:). No further edits should be made to this page.
340:Note: This discussion has been included in the
323:Note: This discussion has been included in the
306:Note: This discussion has been included in the
325:list of Television-related deletion discussions
260:WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions
243:
140:Dexter's Laboratory: The Musical Time Machine
92:Dexter's Laboratory: The Musical Time Machine
8:
131:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
339:
322:
305:
484:. It doesn't need to be in main space.
253:Was originally nominated as part of a
7:
536:"Like I said, if this is a concern,
271:never do and even so, we are not a
649:Dexter's Laboratory#Music releases
624:Dexter's Laboratory#Music releases
54:Dexter's Laboratory#Music releases
24:
529:"That does not make it notable.
116:Introduction to deletion process
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
531:WP:Notability is not inherited
478:in the nominator's perspective
471:WP:Notability is not inherited
439:in the nominator's perspective
1:
282:. This is not enough to meet
280:announcement press releasee
264:Notability is not inherited
106:(AfD)? Read these primers!
696:
513:02:22, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
499:that would make this meet
458:23:28, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
426:15:27, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
388:15:05, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
351:18:05, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
334:18:05, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
317:14:45, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
300:14:24, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
669:Please do not modify it.
660:02:02, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
640:03:31, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
613:07:32, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
466:no matter the situation.
86:08:35, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
583:01:28, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
554:02:15, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
365:for more details. ---
104:Articles for deletion
464:WP:Assume good faith
435:Dexter's Laboratory
399:, particularly the
397:Dexter's Laboratory
59:(non-admin closure)
615:
585:
423:
409:
385:
371:
353:
336:
319:
255:bundle nomination
121:Guide to deletion
111:How to contribute
61:
687:
658:
656:
599:
597:
595:
576:
574:
572:
551:
493:talking about it
489:provide evidence
455:
424:
413:
407:
386:
375:
369:
349:
332:
314:
248:
247:
233:
181:
163:
101:
66:
57:
34:
695:
694:
690:
689:
688:
686:
685:
684:
683:
677:deletion review
654:
652:
616:
590:
588:
586:
567:
565:
545:
449:
431:Oppose deletion
404:
366:
345:
328:
312:
190:
154:
138:
135:
98:
95:
64:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
693:
691:
682:
681:
663:
662:
642:
598:
587:
575:
564:
563:
562:
561:
560:
559:
558:
557:
556:
541:
534:
518:
517:
516:
515:
485:
474:
467:
444:WP:CRYSTALBALL
428:
390:
355:
354:
337:
320:
273:WP:CRYSTALBALL
268:WP:POPULARPAGE
251:
250:
187:
134:
133:
128:
118:
113:
96:
94:
89:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
692:
680:
678:
674:
670:
665:
664:
661:
657:
650:
646:
643:
641:
637:
633:
629:
625:
621:
618:
617:
614:
611:
610:
605:
604:
596:
593:
584:
580:
573:
570:
555:
552:
550:
549:
542:
539:
535:
532:
528:
527:
524:
523:
522:
521:
520:
519:
514:
510:
506:
502:
498:
494:
490:
486:
483:
479:
475:
472:
468:
465:
461:
460:
459:
456:
454:
453:
445:
440:
436:
432:
429:
427:
421:
417:
412:
411:
402:
398:
394:
391:
389:
383:
379:
374:
373:
364:
360:
357:
356:
352:
348:
347:North America
343:
338:
335:
331:
330:North America
326:
321:
318:
315:
309:
304:
303:
302:
301:
297:
293:
289:
285:
281:
276:
274:
269:
265:
261:
256:
246:
242:
239:
236:
232:
228:
224:
221:
218:
215:
212:
209:
206:
203:
200:
196:
193:
192:Find sources:
188:
185:
179:
175:
171:
167:
162:
158:
153:
149:
145:
141:
137:
136:
132:
129:
126:
122:
119:
117:
114:
112:
109:
108:
107:
105:
100:
93:
88:
87:
83:
79:
75:
71:
67:
60:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
668:
666:
644:
619:
607:
601:
589:
566:
547:
546:
537:
496:
492:
488:
481:
477:
451:
450:
438:
430:
406:
400:
392:
368:
358:
277:
252:
240:
234:
226:
219:
213:
207:
201:
191:
97:
49:
47:
31:
28:
548:Paper Luigi
452:Paper Luigi
401:Merchandise
217:free images
408:DOOMSDAYER
370:DOOMSDAYER
673:talk page
630:per nom.
628:WP:NALBUM
501:WP:SIGCOV
313:Spiderone
288:WP:SIGCOV
37:talk page
675:or in a
645:Redirect
620:Redirect
592:Relisted
569:Relisted
538:Draftify
497:anything
482:Draftify
420:CONTRIBS
382:CONTRIBS
184:View log
125:glossary
65:Aseleste
50:redirect
39:or in a
359:Comment
223:WP refs
211:scholar
157:protect
152:history
102:New to
632:SBKSPP
626:Fails
284:WP:GNG
195:Google
161:delete
579:Kichu
505:👨x🐱
395:with
393:Merge
292:👨x🐱
238:JSTOR
199:books
178:views
170:watch
166:links
16:<
655:czar
636:talk
581:🐘
509:talk
416:TALK
378:TALK
296:talk
231:FENS
205:news
174:logs
148:talk
144:edit
647:to
622:to
410:520
372:520
286:or
275:.
245:TWL
182:– (
52:to
638:)
603:jp
511:)
503:.
422:)
384:)
344:.
327:.
310:.
298:)
290:.
225:)
176:|
172:|
168:|
164:|
159:|
155:|
150:|
146:|
84:)
80:,
76:|
72:,
62:~
56:.
634:(
609:g
606:×
507:(
473:.
418:|
414:(
380:|
376:(
294:(
249:)
241:·
235:·
227:·
220:·
214:·
208:·
202:·
197:(
189:(
186:)
180:)
142:(
127:)
123:(
82:l
78:c
74:e
70:t
68:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.