Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beatle Barkers

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 Keep. kingboyk 17:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beatle Barkers

This is another article identified as part of the cleanup drive at WP:Beatles. It's about a parody album performed by singing dogs. Sounds fun, but there's no assertion of and no apparent notability and - here's the killer for me - zero links from mainspace. kingboyk 01:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, unencyclopedic. Royboycrashfan 01:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• I hate to disagree with my esteemed colleague from the UK but I think this nom is at best a few days early. We slapped some tags on this one in hopes someone would turn up... also a google search turns up a fair number of references to this (most not very complimentary to be sure) from diverse places. I think it needs to be merged to some parody album collection point, with a redirect left, rather than deleted outright. ++Lar: t/c 02:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• keep if the album exists in real life, i think it should stay; just because it is bad or not linked is no reason to delete it. Perle 02:41, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• Note: User's 8th edit to Wikipedia, has 0 edits to mainspace. --kingboyk 02:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Note: The mere existance of an album or CD (since it is relatively easy to do low copy count production runs for not a lot of money, I could produce an album of my musings on the stylistic failings of dog music for 400 USD or so I think...) is not sufficient to demonstrate notability per WP:MUSIC. There has to be some evidence of sales through established outlets, or evidence of impact on others, or evidence via reviews, etc... In this case I think some of that evidence does exist (but is enough to make it barely notable, at best) which is why I suggested a merge. Colin's point that there is no article to merge TO is valid... so maybe this should be moved and other dog music articles then merged with this one? ++Lar: t/c 16:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment: isn't the point of this item more that it is Beatles-related rather than dog-music related? --SilverWings 13:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• MERGE per User:Lar - Oarias 03:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Real album, prominent novelty record, pretty strong web presence for a bunch of dogs, and you can still buy their music (on compilations) at Barnes and Noble[1] and Amazon [2] and such. I'd go for a merge to an article about recorded animal performances, but I couldn't find one after a bit of looking, and it's not really helpful to suggest a merge without a destination in mind. It may not strictly meet WP:MUSIC, but I think this is one of those letter-of-the-law/spirit-of-the-law things. -Colin Kimbrell 15:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It is a genuine item with a real connection to The Beatles' music, and therefore of potential interest to anyone researching The Beatles. Comment: This is what I don't understand about deletionists - they frequently advocate removal of material which is potentially of genuine interest to researchers on a topic, which is based on real and genuine sources, but may be a little obscure. Is there some merit in keeping Wikipedia to the bare minimum? If so, why are these huge bloated articles tolerated which deal with all sorts of subjects of fan-dom of little interest to anyone but the most obsessive fans of various print and electronic media? --SilverWings 13:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• If it's so interesting, why is nobody linking to it?! 0 links. This has nothing to do with being a "deletionist" or not, it was an article that was found in Category:The Beatles as part of our cleanup drive and which, with zero links and no context, didn't seem to belong there. I felt it didn't belong at all, but that seems to be a minority opinion at the moment, which is cool. Removing excessive fandom is one thing we are trying to do, but if you look at our project you'll see it's quite a task. --kingboyk 02:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Lots of interesting things here are orphaned, largely because we're a work in progress. -Colin Kimbrell 03:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

There is SO much fandom stuff in Wikipedia, especially in things like Japanese manga and suchlike. No-one seems to do much about it, but if complaints about some much more encyclopedic articles are upheld, I guess I support moves to reduce clear fandom as being not NPOV... though I have to be careful - I am an inclusionist by inclination, heh heh! --SilverWings 13:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beatles-related deletions. -- kingboyk 02:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. It's real, and reasonably notable (around 250 unique Google hits). dbtfz^talk 05:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Beatles. Herostratus 13:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Of interest Funky Monkey 22:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- valid music release. I have the item on cassette myself (somewhere, it was a long time ago). - Longhair 22:55, 19 March 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.