Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Studio Collaboration

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 of the debate was delete. Joyous! | Talk 03:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Studio Collaboration

Disputed prod. This is one of thousands of Beatles bootlegs in circulation, and it's not remarkable or notable in any way. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a Beatleg database. I have raised this issue at WPT:BEATLES and got no objection there. kingboyk 23:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Unremarkable odds-n-sods bootleg/Maccacruft. --DaveG12345 00:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. good lord, it's even claimed to be an "unofficial" bootleg... like there's official bootlegs? Why did I waste all those years in college? Why? Tychocat 02:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment There sure are. :-) --DaveG12345 02:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, fails WP:MUSIC despite being a bootleg of the Beatles. --Coredesat talk 04:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Actually just a bootleg of a Beatle, plus Mr. Costello. --DaveG12345 08:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• If one was being charitable, one could suggest a merge to either Flowers In The Dirt or Spike (Elvis Costello album). I'm not feeling charitable. Delete. Ac@osr 22:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Beatles were pretty important at one time. Might as well include their bootlegs. Arteicle is also fairly well done. --JJay 23:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

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.