Talk:Dragonborn (song)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles

Video games Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Purple Francis (7 participants)
Gilman Louie (2 participants)
Yoshimitsu (3 participants)
Dr. Wily (8 participants)
First Internet Backgammon Server (3 participants)
Emote (2 participants)
Preston Arsement (6 participants; relisted)
Jackpot World (3 participants; relisted)

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

Proposed merge of The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim: Original Game Soundtrack with Dragonborn (song)

NOT MERGED.

No consensus to merge from an uncontentious discussion, if the article is still seen as non-notable, AfD exists. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:44, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I don't think notability is really established here. Recording and composition is anchored to three Valnet sources (listicles) and interviews. Even then, it is essentially duplicative of the parent soundtrack article. Similarly, almost the entirety of the Reception section is sourced to reviews of the soundtrack, not the specific individual song. And finally, the cover section is a combination of covers and mashups of two separate (although related) songs. That section is full of unreliable sources and primary sources as well that don't lend to WP:N. -- ferret (talk) 00:56, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the covers, the primary sources aren't being used for WP:N but WP:V. All of the independent sources listed would meet WP:RS. The discussion of the song by Michiel Kamp and Mark Sweeney isn't just a soundtrack review. It discusses that particular song in detail, along with several others. I wrote the soundtrack and song articles together, if anything I included too much discussion of some individual songs in the soundtrack article.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:20, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So Merged the two or not??? Lililolol (talk) 02:38, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose There does not seem to be any pertinent reason to merge the articles, such as non-notability. While there may be an overlap, it is rather common for albums and songs to both get articles. In other words, it brings to mind WP:AINTBROKE, an attempt to fix a problem that does not exist. If the article is truly claimed to be non-notable, it should be brought to AfD. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:08, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You and I both know that AFDs opened with the express purpose to result in a merge are closed on procedural grounds that a merge is an alternate to deletion and should be handled on talk page. I actually disagree with that, but the community continues to insist the goal of AFD is expressly deletion. Furthermore, to say no pertinent reason to merge, including non-notability, rings a bit flat when my merger statement is almost entirely around (and explaining) why notability is a concern, don't you think? I'm fine if you disagree with my assessment on notability, but to suggest no reason has even been put forth is a bit off. -- ferret (talk) 21:39, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Basically I do not agree with the argument that the article is non-notable. While I am vehemently against using listicles to prove notability, I am not against their use simply for informational purposes. There seems to be at least a few sources demonstrating a WP:N pass hence the article can stay. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:54, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This song is worthy its own article. If the problem is duplicated information elsewhere, then extra information there, shall be moved here. 98.128.128.192 (talk) 04:47, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.