Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animalympics (soundtrack): Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 18:29, 19 April 2021

Animalympics (soundtrack)

[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)

Wikipedia is not a catalog of soundtrack albums, and every soundtrack album, even of notable properties like films and TV series, does not warrants an article as notability is not inherited. To say this is true for soundtracks of animated content would be the understatement of the decade (and we're only less than two years into it).

You may be thinking I'm just bundling a bunch of soundtrack albums without considering their individual notability, but no; every album I listed above fails WP:SIGCOV on an equal level. I checked every darn article in the categories of "Television animation soundtracks‎" and "Animated film soundtracks" (I don't know if anime is a different story so I haven't delved into that), looking for coverage with the usual WP:BEFORE methods: searching on google news, google, google scholar, google books, looking what chart positions are listed for each article and what professional reviews were available for these albums, and I can safely say all of these animated soundtracks don't warrant a whole article. A redirect or merge into their respective film, TV series or franchise articles, maybe, which we already do for soundtracks on articles about other animated content.

This is the usual notability of most animation soundtracks. There are exceptions, of course, likely the hugely-successful Frozen and The Lion King soundtracks that have charted and sold like crazy, but this is not typical. The most you'll find from these articles is one AllMusic review, another review from an un-reputable, likely self-published blog, and maybe one chart position and random press release announcement articles if you're lucky. Primary-source press releases, an AllMusic review, and/or one chart (especially if its Top Kid Audio) doesn't suffice WP:SIGCOV, except (as I have stated before on Afd) for instances where there's so many reputable charts and certifications even if there is no actual coverage.

If we want to talk about individual articles, Thumbelina's soundtrack may be recognized for being the only time in history anything animated was nominated for a Razzie apart from The Emoji Movie, but it was for one song that also has no significant coverage and it could (like the soundtrack) easily fit in the film article. A lot of The Music of Ooo's sources are not about the album, but about certain TV series seasons that happen to talk about the making the songs later compiled on the album. The Last Unicorn only discusses one song becoming notable, not the entire soundtrack. 👨x🐱 (talk) 15:48, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:57, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep without prejudice against individual nominations a reasonable length of time apart (see prior discussions about 'individual nominations all in one day' for why I specified the last clause). I'm sure this was well intentioned. I'm sure, indeed, that the vast majority of these don't warrant independent articles. But this is still a WP:TRAINWRECK no matter how confident you are in that assessment. "Doesn't warrant an independent article" is for a soundtrack album in particular a big range -- some of them will want merging, some redirecting, some deleting, and some might end up kept. There is going to be significant variance in the outcomes indicated for 31 articles, and they cannot be handled as a bulk nomination. Vaticidalprophet 16:28, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- You are not familiar with any of these articles, then. I promise you, I did the research. These have the same amount of lacking coverage, and none will end up being kept, I'll tell you right now. I am aware of other nominations that had bundled articles of varying notability, and I checked to make sure this wasn't the case for this nomination. 👨x🐱 (talk) 16:30, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are at least three ways for an article to not be kept. Non-notable albums routinely close as any of them. Vaticidalprophet 16:48, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - All of them will probably voted to redirect or merge into other articles. 👨x🐱 (talk) 16:59, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - (edit conflict) "Redirect" and "merge" are different closes. Whether a given album is to be redirected or merged is not best analysed by looking at 31 of them at once. Also, please keep in mind that replying to every !vote tends to be counterproductive. If I'm wrong, then people will notice and the discussion will close accordingly; there is no need to reply to every individual to demonstrate this, as it'd be self-evident. Vaticidalprophet 17:01, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        These 31 articles are all the ones I found in the categories I mentioned above to be non-notable and not meet WP:GNG. WP:BLUDGEON states that you can't respond to every comment with the same points, which I have made different responses for each comment. 👨x🐱 (talk) 18:24, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per above. The Last Unicorn and Rock-A-Doodle are also America and Glen Campbell albums, respectively, for one example. These bulk nominations are bad practice, in my opinion ... not sure why Wikipedia even allows for them. Caro7200 (talk) 16:36, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- That is lousy reasoning. So what? Just because they're albums by famous artists doesn't make them notable. Like I said, notability is not inherited. Also, there are absolute good cases for bundle nominations when all the articles have the same problems, like in this nomination. 👨x🐱 (talk) 16:39, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Such massive bundling of nominations isn't a good idea. Every respective article creator notified about this discussion could come here and just vote keep, which would swiftly get it closed. As the creator of The Peanuts Movie (soundtrack), I am fine with that one being deleted, haven't looked at the others.--N Ø 16:48, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll just tell you a lot of the users that created this article are no longer active, so don't expect any votes from them for this discussion. 👨x🐱 (talk) 16:51, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - What even is this AfD? I second all of Vaticidalprophet's points. Individual discussions are the way to go.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:53, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - In considering the nominator's rationale and additional comments, I am still not convinced that these articles, submitted in the bundle that is this AfD nom, should be deleted outright. As part of the original rationale for deletion, the nominator noted that all of these articles are for soundtracks or spinoff albums of film and TV series for which articles meeting the general notability guidelines already exist. 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. Deleting these articles is overkill as any and all of them can be converted to redirects, and even then I would be against bundling this many articles in one nomination. — Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 18:05, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- "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." Draftify the articles if this is a concern, but we are not a crystal ball, and thus we cannot assume "if they hold up to notability standards at a later date." It's rare any of these kind of releases do (which I know is also a little bit of a crystal ball statement, but trust me, I have experience editing and researching these kind of album articles). We don't need fully-live articles to have histories of contents and versions of pages. 👨x🐱 (talk) 18:24, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 18:15, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 18:15, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Agree with points above, that bundle deletion seems like a bad idea - individual deletion/redirection per article would be better. Note that some of these articles are getting 100+ views/day. Anair13 (talk) 18:29, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 59: / Line 59: @@
 :<small class="delsort-notice">Note:  This discussion has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Music|list of Music-related deletion discussions]]. [[User:EpicPupper|'''EpicPupper''']] 18:15, 19 April 2021 (UTC)</small>
 :<small class="delsort-notice">Note:  This discussion has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Film|list of Film-related deletion discussions]]. [[User:EpicPupper|'''EpicPupper''']] 18:15, 19 April 2021 (UTC)</small>
+*'''Speedy Keep''' - Agree with points above, that bundle deletion seems like a bad idea - individual deletion/redirection per article would be better. Note that some of these articles are getting 100+ views/day. [[User:Anair13|Anair13]] ([[User talk:Anair13|talk]]) 18:29, 19 April 2021 (UTC)