Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SpongeBob SquarePants: Original Theme Highlights

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) — MarkH₂₁^talk 00:38, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SpongeBob SquarePants: Original Theme Highlights

[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.

While Spongebob is generally the better ones in the notability department with its soundtrack releases, I can't say this EP meets WP:SIGCOV, as there's only an Allmusic review to find. I was also considering nominating The Yellow Album for deletion, but I've been a bit more skeptical about doing that as at least there I could also find a Sputnikmusic staff review and a book about the Beatles briefly discussing the album, and its title and cover art is a parody of the White Album. 👨x🐱 (talk) 19:04, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I found sigcov from AV Club regarding a vinyl reissue and from Altpress twice over (1, 2), though the latter could be argued to be more representative of a single song than the album. The Allmusic review is their more reliable sort. I still wasn't quite happy with all this, and I suspected there were print magazine sources missing from my analysis. I headed to newspapers.com not expecting much and was somewhat surprised to indeed find sigcov from the Iowa City Press-Citizen (13 June 2002, page 36) and Reno Gazette-Journal (14 August 2001, page 26). The combination of googleable and paywalled sigcov leaves me confident of a GNG pass, if narrowly. Vaticidalprophet 14:07, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, that's... better, although the Altpress sources are announcements, and the A.V. Club, although released a decade later after the album, is an announcement as well. I'll have to find out if the newspapers.com sources are sigcov. 👨x🐱 (talk) 16:16, 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) 15:09, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article can be improved with the additional sources found by Vaticidalprophet above, though I agree with him/her that it's a close call. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:07, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Vaticidalprophet's rationale. Donaldd23 (talk) 19:53, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Vaticidalprophet's rationale. Riteboke (talk) 06:59, 28 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.