Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All Together Now (The Beatles)

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep (14k, 9m, 1d). Scimitar ^parley 16:57, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] All Together Now (The Beatles)

Not notable song. Mr Bound 00:41, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

• This song was from Yellow Submarine. Allmusic.com has an article on the song [1] but it was never released as a single and/or is not a particularly notable album track so merge what is usable with Yellow Submarine. I have rewritten the article and change my vote to Keep given its role in the film. Capitalistroadster 01:11, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notable Beatles song. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:39, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, songs by the Beatles are notable, and I've heard this one. Gazpacho 01:55, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keee very much notable. Themindset 03:07, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep (but the song should have been deleted before the album was released) Fg2 03:35, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Yellow Submarine. There's no reason to have a separate article on a song unless and until there is better content than Bom bom bom bompa bom . —Wahoofive (talk) 04:49, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but ONLY if completely rewritten and with copyvio lyrics removed. 23skidoo 05:12, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Right at the moment there's nothing worth keeping - the useful information already exists on the Yellow Submarine article. I don't think it was released as the a-side of a single in any major market, although I think there was a book published listing all The Beatles tracks by the same name in the mid 1970s, which is just about the only separate fact I can think of to justify an article existing separately from the album. Average Earthman 08:02, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Er, that's a merge vote, by the way. Average Earthman 08:02, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. It's notable enough just for being a Beatles song. I rewrote it a little to make it less . . . bad. Bubamara 08:38, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

• Merge the little that's not already in Yellow Submarine to that article. No, Virginia, not every song is worth an article. We've had a practice since 2002 at least of having articles only for songs that are truly outstandingly remarkable. Being a #1 hit is one criterion. Being a song that influenced everyone else (e.g. "Great Gig in the Sky" wasn't a #1 hit of any sort, but everyone knows it, and musicians have been darkly envious and wistful about imitating it since) is another. The Beatles are huge, but that doesn't mean that "Doctor Robert" or "And Your Bird Can Sing" would be worth an article. Neither does it mean that "All Together Now" is, either. Geogre 11:42, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Yellow Submarine per Geogre. Dcarrano 15:07, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep, consider me amazed to see this here jamesgibbon 17:11, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Yellow Submarine per Geogre. Nandesuka 18:17, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Yellow Submarine. Why is a song notable just because it's by The Beatles? --Stevefarrell 18:33, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Yellow Submarine. Answering previous question: The policy about Beatles songs should be similar to that of Beethoven or Mozart, given their massive and undeniable contribution to the history of music. If there's no problem with String Quartet No. 5 (Beethoven) being included in Wikipedia, then the same courtesy can and should be extended to most Beatles songs. Note that I say most Beatles songs. This song here is certainly non-notable, and the only courtesy necessary is a redirect to the Yellow Submarine album, which can sufficiently cover this song. DiceDiceBaby 21:23, 22 July 2005 (UTC) (forgot to log in)...
  • Comment Fair point. There are certainly many 'stories behind the song' in the case of Beatles' output that can be interesting and encyclopedic. This definitely isn't one of them, though. Not sure about comparing the Beatles to Beethoven, but that's probably just me. --Stevefarrell 23:41, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Gamaliel 21:51, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. We've been making articles for every Beatles song we can. Redwolf24 22:57, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as above. --Carnildo 23:12, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Yellow Submarine. JamesBurns 03:46, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I'm bewildered. Why on earth would anyone consider this a deletion candidate? Grutness...wha? 05:43, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Any song by a notable band is itself notable...especially if the band was something other than a "one-hit wonder". The amount of information is too much to merge, and as this is an encyclopedia, it's better to keep something that shouldn't be here than to get rid of something that should.
• Keep. This is definitely notable. Binadot 22:36, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep' All together now !!!, all beatles songs are notable. Ditto for elv1s Klonimus 07:02, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Er, not to nitpick or anything, guys, but stealing text wholesale from this copyrighted article doesn't exactly improve Wikipedia's reputation. Nandesuka 05:20, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't contain anything from there anymore. Grutness...wha? 03:02, 27 July 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.