Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Early Tapes of The Beatles

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 (no consensus). TigerShark 09:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Early Tapes of The Beatles

• Finishing AfD listing and fixing formatting. No opinion. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 03:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Even the most obscure Beatles compilation is probably notable. --djrobgordon 03:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• What a load of bollocks for this over-inflated band.

• Keep per djrobgordon. Tempshill 04:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete If it were from 1962 yes, but it's from 2004. ~ trialsanderrors 05:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per djrobgordon. It doesn't matter when it was released. It doesn't even matter that it wasn't even sung by the beatles. --Danielrocks123 07:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Robertsteadman 09:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Repackaging already existing material doesn't seem notable to me, unless its a case where the compilation itself is culturally notable (such as Beatles 1). I'll change my vote if such a case can be shown. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 09:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• keep per djrobgordon. Bruno18 14:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No need for repacked and/or reissued albums. Teke 15:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with The Beatles discography. Ac@osr 17:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to the newly created article The Beatles' First which was the first British packaging of this material. The posting is a change from my earlier (now deleted) posting to reflect the new article which should replace this article. Steelbeard1 02:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to the newly created article The Beatles' First. This is the first British packaging of the Sheridan/Beatles/Beat Brothers Hamburg recordings. We do not need separate articles on each different repackaging of an album. Extraordinary Machine 18:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Good to have because this is the Beatles. The article is also informative. --JJay 22:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - as djrobgordon says - Any album that contains Beatles songs is more notable than most of the albums we already have here. - Richardcavell 00:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per djrobgordon  Funky Monkey  (talk)  00:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Merge the content to The Beatles discography or The Beatles' First as Ac@osr, Steelbeard1. --HResearcher 03:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge this with The Beatles' First, keep the cover image there, and leave a redirect, per Steelbeard1, et al. (I'm a member of WP:Beatles but I still don't see the need for this particular article) ++Lar: t/c 11:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep more notable than some of the hip hop rappers who make transient appearances. Part of pop history. BlueValour 21:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with The Beatles' First as recommended above. The keep voters seem to be overlooking that this article specifically is about a 2004 repackaging, not the original release. Bwithh 06:30, 25 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.