Template:Did you know nominations/A Beautiful Mind (soundtrack)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 21:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

A Beautiful Mind (soundtrack)

edit

5x expanded by Ruby2010 (talk). Self nominated at 00:29, 13 January 2014 (UTC).

  • This article can fit into the parent article, A Beautiful Mind (film), unless you can expand the article to make merger impossible. --George Ho (talk) 00:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I disagree. While I did not create this article, I believe that there is enough secondary coverage out there to make it a notable topic (major awards, critical reception, etc). And while the parent article is not completed, I think it's long enough to render a pure merge difficult. Ruby 2010/2013 01:04, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Notability does not guarantee a stand-alone article for a related subtopic. Perhaps Development section can belong to the Production section, and the Reception section can be part of the Soundtrack section (which is yet to exist), along with tracklist. --George Ho (talk) 01:10, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I know about Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but I've got to say it anyway: this soundtrack is more notable than most film scores; if we decided to merge this one, we would have to do the same to almost every other similar article. I'd like to see some other opinions on this. If you feel strongly, feel free to open up a merge discussion. Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013 01:24, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
  • If anyone noticed, the AfD on "Choose Your Battles" failed. If that one was a keep, this one is easily a keep. I suggest the reviewer approve it. Montanabw(talk) 02:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
  • A merge discussion has been opened; DYK policy is that the nomination goes on hold while the merge proposal is under discussion, much like what happens while an AfD is being considered. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:59, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
You can close that discussion as "not moved" and then approve this nomination. There haven't been newer votes since 3rd vote. --George Ho (talk) 00:18, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
I have closed the merge discussion. --Orlady (talk) 20:49, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
OK, so can one of the above reviewers review the hook and nom, or do we require a new reviewer?
Looks to me like anybody can review this now. --Orlady (talk) 03:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Hook checks out, thanks to my Highbeam account, hook is short enough, neutral and interesting. Article is within policy and I have been able to access all sources to verify it. No copyright-related issues. Article is an expansion candidate, originally 424 characters, expanded to 2881, (over 5x). QPQ is absent though, and will need to be completed before the hook can be promoted. C679 20:07, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for reviewing. Shoot, I must have forgotten about the QPQ due to the merge discussion. I will complete one today and submit it here. Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013 20:49, 11 February 2014 (UTC) QPQ now complete. Ruby 2010/2013 04:40, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Great, this nomination may now pass. C679 09:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)