320:: 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
367:
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
464:
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
371:
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
510:
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
532:
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
263:
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
366:
The Town Talk piece is literally a two-page spread about its recording. newspapers.com is theoretically paywalled, although accessible through The
Knowledge 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
533:
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.
348:
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?
276:
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
430:- 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
402:
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.
250:
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
431:
215:
271:
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
388:
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.
247:
297:
255:, 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
252:
209:
176:
149:
144:
123:
153:
108:
136:
256:
484:
450:
230:
197:
71:
321:
103:
96:
17:
372:
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.)
140:
542:
520:
490:
456:
414:
397:
383:
358:
343:
309:
289:
191:
78:
117:
113:
409:
378:
338:
187:
559:
40:
528:
so that the article can be merged or kept as appropriate. I really think the content should have been merged to
329:
237:
480:
446:
132:
84:
529:
516:
393:
354:
285:
555:
404:
373:
333:
265:
260:
36:
364:
I can't find the newspapers.com articles, but are you sure they're specifically about the soundtrack?
67:
305:
223:
203:
470:
436:
538:
512:
389:
350:
281:
92:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
554:
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
278:
59:
259:. Another agued "some of these articles are getting 100+ views/day", which is an invalid
301:
54:
466:
325:
534:
170:
332:), which as you note is easier to source on non-archival online sources.
432:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/The Pebble and the
Penguin (soundtrack)
550:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
502:
withdrawing the nomination, but I am changing my vote to a
166:
162:
158:
222:
298:
list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
562:). No further edits should be made to this page.
296:Note: This discussion has been included in the
328:) and coverage of multiple songs at once (e.g.
253:WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions
236:
8:
124:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
295:
363:
246:Was originally nominated as part of a
7:
465:"awarded" to contributors, see e.g.
264:never do and even so, we are not a
24:
511:be discussed in the film article
109:Introduction to deletion process
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
257:Notability is not inherited
99:(AfD)? Read these primers!
579:
543:10:04, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
521:17:54, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
491:16:24, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
457:15:10, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
415:14:54, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
398:14:52, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
384:13:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
359:12:16, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
344:15:45, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
310:14:35, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
290:14:22, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
552:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
133:Thumbelina (soundtrack)
85:Thumbelina (soundtrack)
79:16:00, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
530:Thumbelina (1994 film)
434:for more details. ---
97:Articles for deletion
55:(non-admin closure)
488:
474:
454:
440:
312:
248:bundle nomination
114:Guide to deletion
104:How to contribute
57:
570:
489:
478:
472:
455:
444:
438:
241:
240:
226:
174:
156:
94:
77:
75:
62:
53:
34:
578:
577:
573:
572:
571:
569:
568:
567:
566:
560:deletion review
469:
435:
274:The Emoji Movie
183:
147:
131:
128:
91:
88:
76:
65:
60:
58:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
576:
574:
565:
564:
546:
545:
523:
493:
459:
425:
424:
423:
422:
421:
420:
419:
418:
417:
314:
313:
266:WP:CRYSTALBALL
261:WP:POPULARPAGE
244:
243:
180:
127:
126:
121:
111:
106:
89:
87:
82:
64:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
575:
563:
561:
557:
553:
548:
547:
544:
540:
536:
531:
527:
524:
522:
518:
514:
509:
505:
501:
497:
494:
492:
486:
482:
477:
476:
467:
463:
460:
458:
452:
448:
443:
442:
433:
429:
426:
416:
413:
412:
408:
407:
401:
400:
399:
395:
391:
387:
386:
385:
382:
381:
377:
376:
370:
365:
362:
361:
360:
356:
352:
347:
346:
345:
342:
341:
337:
336:
331:
327:
323:
319:
316:
315:
311:
307:
303:
299:
294:
293:
292:
291:
287:
283:
280:
275:
269:
267:
262:
258:
254:
249:
239:
235:
232:
229:
225:
221:
217:
214:
211:
208:
205:
202:
199:
196:
193:
189:
186:
185:Find sources:
181:
178:
172:
168:
164:
160:
155:
151:
146:
142:
138:
134:
130:
129:
125:
122:
119:
115:
112:
110:
107:
105:
102:
101:
100:
98:
93:
86:
83:
81:
80:
73:
69:
63:
56:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
551:
549:
525:
507:
503:
499:
495:
471:
461:
437:
427:
410:
405:
379:
374:
368:
339:
334:
317:
273:
270:
245:
233:
227:
219:
212:
206:
200:
194:
184:
90:
49:
47:
31:
28:
210:free images
473:DOOMSDAYER
439:DOOMSDAYER
556:talk page
504:Weak Keep
406:Vaticidal
375:Vaticidal
335:Vaticidal
302:Shellwood
279:WP:SIGCOV
37:talk page
558:or in a
485:CONTRIBS
451:CONTRIBS
177:View log
118:glossary
72:ICE CUBE
39:or in a
535:Thincat
498:. I am
496:Comment
428:Comment
411:prophet
380:prophet
340:prophet
216:WP refs
204:scholar
150:protect
145:history
95:New to
61:ASTIG😎
188:Google
154:delete
513:👨x🐱
508:Merge
468:. ---
390:👨x🐱
351:👨x🐱
282:👨x🐱
231:JSTOR
192:books
171:views
163:watch
159:links
68:ICE T
16:<
539:talk
526:Keep
517:talk
481:TALK
462:Keep
447:TALK
394:talk
355:talk
330:here
326:here
324:and
322:here
318:Keep
306:talk
286:talk
224:FENS
198:news
167:logs
141:talk
137:edit
50:keep
506:or
500:not
475:520
441:520
369:own
268:.
238:TWL
175:– (
541:)
519:)
487:)
453:)
396:)
357:)
308:)
300:.
288:)
218:)
169:|
165:|
161:|
157:|
152:|
148:|
143:|
139:|
70:•
52:.
537:(
515:(
483:|
479:(
449:|
445:(
392:(
353:(
304:(
284:(
242:)
234:·
228:·
220:·
213:·
207:·
201:·
195:·
190:(
182:(
179:)
173:)
135:(
120:)
116:(
74:)
66:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.