Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Beatles' miscellanea

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 was Speedy Close. Constantly renominating this article is just gaming the system. Furthermore, the article has been renamed, and the main author has proposed rehousing the pertinent info and getting rid of the article. Let's give him a chance to do just that.

Let me also just point out that the fork article History of the Beatles was an abject failure, so let's not go down that road again. kingboyk 11:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Beatles' miscellanea

The Beatles' miscellanea (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

I like the Beatles as much as the next guy, but this article is a collection of trivia. Some facts are semi-notable, but most are exceedingly trivial. Any Beatles-related information that hasn't (or in some cases has) found a place in another article is included here, with no justification except "the Beatles rock, so we have to mention everything we know about them". Lexicon (talk) 01:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

  • See past AfDs:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Beatles trivia, no consensus, July 2006
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Beatles trivia/2nd, keep, September 2006
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Beatles trivia (3rd nomination), keep, February 2007
  • Does the fact that the last keep decision was last month warrant a speedy close? –Pomte 01:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Ah. Past AfDs should be noted on the talk page of the article to prevent this sort of thing. Lexicon (talk) 01:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
    • "What links here" is your friend. Uncle G 01:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Yeah, and apparently it does show the past AfDs, albeit hidden in a "milestones" section that is by default rolled up. It still needs deleting, though. Lexicon (talk) 01:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - WP:NOT#Indiscriminate collection of information; just because something is 100% true, does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. anthonycfc [talk] 01:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as a thoroughly indiscriminate collection of information. We have recently deleted similar articles for Jimi Hendrix, The Who, Aerosmith and Rush and this is no better. Otto4711 03:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete any article with "miscellanea" in its title will by that very fact fall afoul of WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE semper fictilis 03:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge into relevant sub-articles. (changed from earlier Keep, changed from Weak Delete) I'm typically in favor of listcruft. The world does not really need List of Dragon Ball Z characters born in March or April with Power Levels over 290. But here, it's the Beatles, likely the single most influential band in Western pop music history (and that's coming from an ardent Frank Zappa fan). Perhaps they're not "bigger than Jesus", but I could wager for "nearly as big". That is to say that, like Christianity, a lot of otherwise unnotable or redundant/pedantic fluff that doesn't exactly require its own article is bumped up a notch in importance due to the impact the Beatles had on life. This list is probably more comprehensive than any single fan site out there, and it's "notable" in the sense that there are probably people interested in it - and more people interested in it than in similar listcruft.
Also, just a random thought - since the entire Beatles article is "only" 62KB long (compare to 93KB for the 9/11 attacks - this may sound flakey, but I think the Beatles are easily as important), has the possibility of breaking The Beatles into seperate "main" sections for each period (say, prehistory / quarrymen years /// fab four / everybody wearing the same outfit years /// studio / psychedelic years /// final let it be years /// solo careers from a Beatles perspective, with the main article summarizing each) been broached? It might allow for the inclusion of several of these miscellanies in the sub-articles. I believe the Beatles to be a lot more important than, say, Dragon Ball Z or even The Simpsons, and I do believe that in this case, inclusiveness wins out over any sense of cruft.
That said, the article is poorly organized, possibly by its very nature, and poorly written, and should be dealt with somehow. I'm bouncing around a lot here, and ultimately my vote is to split the Beatles history up into separate subarticles (if it hasn't already been done - I'll admit I didn't fully scan the current article), and put most, if not all, of the information there. --Action Jackson IV 04:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
What about List of Dragon Ball Z characters whose Power Level is OVER NINE THOUSAND!? Hbdragon88 08:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep/Merge - All this info is important and should be included on Wikipedia, its just not sorted properly. I think the title is a big reason why its unpopular with other editors - it really implies that it is a collection of trivia. There is a substantial amount of info here that should be incorporated elsewhere. Zzz345zzZ 05:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - super well cited article. This won't fit on another page, and it's navigationally useful to have it in one place (WP:LIST, WP:SIZE). The citations prove this information is not trivial. - Peregrine Fisher 06:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as the citations make this more than just a trivia page. I agree with Action Jackson IV, though -- the editors of The Beatles really should explore a subarticle format (probably easy enough to break out History of the Beatles ...) and work as much of this into the article narratives as possible. -- Dhartung | Talk 06:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete This is about as indiscriminate as you can get, which Wikipedia is not. We do not need a "splash page" for other pages; wiki-links and navboxes and that sort already adequeately link readers to other articles. Hbdragon88 06:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. A massive and completely undifferentiated grab-bag of info: how well or badly sourced it is is irrelevant. If any of its bits will fit or are appropriate elsewhere, go crazy now, but this mess as a whole needs to go. --Calton | Talk 08:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename as per previous AfD. StuartDouglas 10:17, 9 March 2007 (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.