Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dexter's Laboratory: The Musical Time Machine

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.

Dexter's Laboratory: The Musical Time Machine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log

)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was originally nominated as part of a

For this article, only coverage is Allmusic review and a announcement press releasee. This is not enough to meet

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:45, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:05, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:05, 23 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) 15:05, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Dexter's Laboratory, particularly the Merchandise 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. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:27, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose deletion. 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
  WP:CRYSTALBALL 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 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. — Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 23:28, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • In retrospect, I'm not a fan of how I wrote those comments either, but please WP:Assume good faith no matter the situation.
  • "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.
    WP:Notability is not inherited
    .
  • "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 in the nominator's perspective at a later date." Like I said, if this is a concern,Draftify. It doesn't need to be in main space.
  • "For the record, I do not agree that the article's subject does not meet WP's notability standards." Then provide evidence that it does. Link me to independent sources, reviews (besides that Allmusic page), books talking about it (not just giving it a passing mention), archive.org scans of print sources, newspapers.com urls, academic literature, charts, certifications, anything that would make this meet
    WP:SIGCOV. 👨x🐱 (talk) 02:22, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

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.

• "That does not make it notable.
  WP:Notability is not inherited
  ." 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.
• "Like I said, if this is a concern,Draftify. 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.
• "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? — Paper Luigi T • C 02:15, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to
  WP:NALBUM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 03:31, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect to Dexter's Laboratory#Music releases. Nothing to merge. No sources to warrant a draft. czar 02:02, 17 May 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.