Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Game of Thrones title sequence (2nd nomination)

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. OK, it seems like the topic is notable, as the claim and evidence to that effect provided by Hzh has not been contested. As noted by others FANCRUFT is an essay and is more importantly not garnering consensus support among participants. That leaves the question of a merger with the main article open as well as concerns about the quality of the current article writeup (I see the tables and the presence of original research have been mentioned); I defer these to the article talkpage for further discussion as neither needs an AfD. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:20, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Game of Thrones title sequence

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

Pretty much all fancruft unfortunately, especially tables, no notibility outside topic of Game of Thrones. Having an Emmy does not make this notable, otherwise every title sequence that has got the award deserves an article. Ted Edwards 18:56, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The title sequence does seem to be well-covered, however. A simple Google search brought up numerous — very recent at that — articles about it. Mr. Magoo (talk) 19:08, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some examples [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11] and so on. Mr. Magoo (talk) 19:13, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A ton of filler content and unnecessary tables. This is better suited for a wiki. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 19:11, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:FANCRUFT -- Whats new?^(talk) 08:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly Merge to Game of Thrones; though I'm not sure any content needs to be added. Argument as per above; WP:FANCRUFT. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:53, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Game of Thrones Brocicle (talk) 12:21, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, the Emmy award does suggests that it has individual notability, and the title sequence has received widespread non-trivial media coverage, also parodied and adapted ([12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23] in addition to some already given above and many more). These two facts should qualified the article under notability criteria - there is no specific notability guideline for title sequence, although winning a major award and having non-trivial coverage in reliable sources are the usual notability criteria for articles on various media such as music, TV, film and other related subjects, see e.g. WP:NMEDIA, WP:NMUSIC, etc. The article however needs more sources, and it could be trimmed, but these are different issues not relevant here because the notability criteria have been satisfied. Whether other title sequences that won award also have their own articles or not is also irrelevant (there is for example one for The Simpsons), the notability of each article is judged on its own. It should be noted that WP:FANCRUFT is an essay and not Wikipedia policy or guideline, and reason for deletion should be discussed in reference to WP:DEL-REASON or WP:NOT. Hzh (talk) 10:57, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hzh: But once you remove all the tables, descriptions etc., it will have so little infomation it could easily be put on Game of Thrones. And Emmys do not equal notabilty; to my knowledge this is the only article on a title sequence. Ted E dwards 17:16, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You certainly don't want to merge it into the Game of Thrones main article, the article is already around the size of article where splitting should be considered, see WP:SIZE. The size of this article in any case is not a valid reason for deletion. I'll give the link for The Simpsons again - The Simpsons opening sequence, see also Opening and closing sequences of The Prisoner and The Mary Tyler Moore Show opening sequence. There are also title sequence articles for films - e.g. James Bond, Star Wars. You determine the notability of individual article according the criteria as recommended by the guidelines (as already mentioned, the Game of Thrones title sequence qualifies with the award won, and good coverage), and not whether it is a title sequence or not. Hzh (talk) 19:14, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Could do with losing the tables I guess but Game of Thrones is already long and I believe there is enough out there to support a separate article.--Pontificalibus (talk) 18:32, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - well sourced, sigcov ensures it should be kept. Editors such as myself may not like the obsessive detail of some of the tables, but any of us who have any such concerns can trim down the article and/or use any other available discussion mechanisms. That the nom does not like "especially tables" is no argument for an AfD process. XavierItzm (talk) 19:43, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@XavierItzm: All I was saying was the tables are the bit I dislike the most, but the not the only thing I dislike. I dislike the "rules" for the sequence and the over detailed description of the sequence. Once you get rid of those, you're left with a stub, that could easily be included on Game of Thrones. Ted Edwards 16:51, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unjustified content fork.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:19, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is standard for WP:SPINOFF articles. The title sequence article is typical of articles that are subtopic of any main article, where you'd put a summary of the content in the main article so as not to create excessive bulk of a subtopic in the main article that would skew the importance of the subtopic to the main article. Hzh (talk) 09:51, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hzh:Maybe it is me, but I'm not following your argument. This is a spinoff article, and seems appropriate for one - its length would be too long to include in the main article, and there is a decent summary in the main article. Could you perhaps re-word what you are trying to say? Benthatsme (talk) 19:35, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are saying what I said - this article is appropriate as a spinoff article, its length would be too long for the main article, and there is a summary in the main article. Hzh (talk) 20:55, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – For the reasons laid out by Hzh. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 23:59, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator suggests it is not notable, and that it qualifies as WP:FANCRUFT. While I agree that winning an Emmy does not alone make this topic notable, the many many secondary sources in the article and referenced above certainly ensures the topic clears the notability bar. Whether or not it is fancruft is immaterial. The fancruft essay (not a policy document) explains many common problems with articles that are written by 'fans' of a topic. Even if I were to grant the fact that in this article there are too many tables and too much detail (which I am not convinced of), then that is problem best addressed by edits and on the talk page, not by deletion. Benthatsme (talk) 23:40, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 19:07, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Benthatsme: The main problem with the tables is that they serve no encylopediac purpose at all; they are completely unnecessary. The only table I would want kept, should this discussion not end in my favour, would be the table of awards. Ted Edwards 21:10, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You hit the nail on the head. The issue is of form, not of nature. The page should probably edited and trimmed down. But not obliterated! The idea is to try and improve the Wikipedia, not to nuke it from orbit. XavierItzm (talk) 16:04, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in completely obliterating this work on this article. I feel that the necessary detail could be added to the Game of Thrones article, without the section being too long. Ted Edwards 22:24, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to merge this page into another article, then why start the deletion process? Separately, tables are not a problem, per se. They are often a much more natural way to present information than in text form. You seem to object to the tables, not the information within, which is confusing me. In any case, as I said before, that topic really belongs on the talk page for the article.Benthatsme (talk) 05:34, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If I merge the articles, it's effectively a page delete, hence the discussion here. Also, I definitely object to the "info" in the table, it is completely pointless and unencyclopediac. It would be better just to say that the title sequence includes the cast and crew (perhaps obviously) and shows on a map some locations in the fictional world, changing depending on the episode. Ted Edwards 13:18, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - An impressive piece of Original Research. Pure in-universe fan cruft, not an encyclopedic topic or treatment. Wrong wiki. Carrite (talk) 16:50, 12 September 2017 (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.