Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Game of Thrones title sequence

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

I love this show, but beyond the level of detail that is already given at Game_of_Thrones#Title_sequence, I doubt this is notable outside Game of Thrones fandom. There is a comprehensive page on the subject already at gameofthrones.wikia.com/wiki/Title_sequence for those interested. Mikael Häggström (talk) 12:55, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 February 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:18, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm new to deletion/notability debates, but personally I'd recommend keep. The article is well-written and has several secondary sources. My understanding from perusing the notability page is that existence of secondary sources is a major component of notability. It also seems like the existence of the Wikia page would make the subject more notable, not less notable. That's just my 2¢ worth, though, and I think it ultimately boils down to the inclusionism/deletionism debate. I just hate to see quality articles deleted. --Ppelleti (talk) 02:50, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:43, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The fact that it won an Emmy for the title sequence would suggest some stand-alone notability. At the moment, it reads very fancrufty, but it could be expanded with sources to verify it's own notability. Take alook at the article for The Simpsons opening sequence for more. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:40, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article looks to be really well written. While it could use some additional sources - to increase notability - it seems to be good enough in a current state. SkywalkerPL (talk) 16:39, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' gree that a couple more sources wouldn't go amiss, but the article is in a good condition overall. Also, just because an outside site has a similar page is irrelevant really. it is whether it is good enough on its own here, and I believe it is. IdenticalHetero (talk) 17:22, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]