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 keep, but I think a rename may just be in order. - Mailer Diablo 04:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Beatles trivia[edit]

The Beatles trivia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

The Beatles trivia was nominated for deletion on 2006-07-16. The result of the discussion was "no consensus". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Beatles trivia.

The Beatles trivia was nominated for deletion on 2006-09-27. The result of the discussion was "keep". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Beatles trivia/2nd. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Uncle G (talk • contribs) 02:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Earlier discussion closed with no consensus. The article still contravenes the basic policy that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and since the previous discussion a similar article has been deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steely Dan trivia). I am also listing Pink Floyd trivia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for the same reason. Worldtraveller 00:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(See my second comment below) First discussion closed with no concensus, the last closed with keep! Please provide examples of how article has deteriorated or different manners which have not been previously discussed. LessHeard vanU 22:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Worldtraveller has nominated this article for deletion twice (in six months). andreasegde 13:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and in the spirit of WP:AVTRIV. MER-C 02:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge information and delete this article. I can see much of this information being relevant in the proper articles (ie merging the movie trivia into the main movie article), but there's no sense in amalgamating it into a giant bag of barely related trivia. --Wafulz 03:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the arguments in the 2nd AfD. It does still require renaming, however. Resolute 04:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge (and abridge for some) the most interesting facts into the appropriate articles. Delete the boring entries and non-trivia (e.g., the legal battle between Apple Inc and Apple Corps isn't trivial at all). mikm_t 05:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The only problem with this is how to decide which material is non-trivial and which isn't. Unless each subject is split into its own article and discussed of itself, we could be heading for edit wars. Agree about the legal tussle, of course. Ac@osr 12:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Its good to have the short subjects under a single heading called trivia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. Punkmorten 08:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but rename, as per Resolute. Situation hasn't changed since last nom. Grutness...wha? 06:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT /Blaxthos 08:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but rename - as I said in the last debate, it would be very unfair to describe much of this article as "trivia" - "miscellany" might be better as most of this is of genuine interest, some may even deserve their own article. Again, to repeat what I said last time,the comparison was with an article about Keane that included such glorious nuggets as "they love food" and this article is of a totally different nature. There isn't an obvious merge target for all of it and it makes sense to have it separate from the main Beatles article. Ac@osr 12:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but rename - keep for all the reasons per the previous AfD's; the major articles are already very large and info here may be difficult to insert within article context - That is not to say it isn't notable just difficult to find an appropriate place. My preferred choice for rename remains Miscellenae ! LessHeard vanU 13:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggest rename to The Beatles in popular culture under Category:Musicians in popular culture. The other Beatles article there, The Beatles' influence on popular culture, has a different topic. Pomte 16:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because in the end it's trivial. This really belongs on a fansite somewhere. Guy (Help!) 16:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Miscellany helps put broader issues in context. --Eastmain 16:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How? And how does any article consisting of 'miscellany' square with WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information? Worldtraveller 17:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Important trivia. TonyTheTiger 17:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is an oxymoron. Worldtraveller 18:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. The content passes all wikipedia policies. It is referenced and relates to the Beatles career and impact. There is nothing trivial about information - at the end of the day, this is an encyclopedia. The problem is that the Beatles' article is quite long. Hence, multiple articles are required. And no rename is required--JJay 18:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't honestly see how it is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and that is specifically proscribed by WP:NOT. Worldtraveller 18:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP: Not (indiscriminate collection of information) is specific not elastic. It does not encompass anything or everything that is difficult to categorize/poorly organized/I don't like/has trivia in the title/I don't understand/I think is pointless,useless,stupid etc. It specifically proscribes: (i)FAQs; (ii) travel guides; (iii) memorials; (iv) instruction manuals; (v) internet guides; (vi) textbooks; (vii) plot summaries; (viii) lyrics databases; (ix) things made up in school. It only proscribes these when the article in question is "simply" one of these nine categories- i.e. it does not go beyond the parameters of the archetype. This article does not fit into any of those catgeoriies and is in no way proscribed by the policy you cite. --JJay 18:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Delete though the beatles are amazing this list is quite -crufty and does seem indiscriminate. i know this vote won't help but oh well.--Tainter 19:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. This article gives direct links to many people, artists and places that The Beatles were connected with. It is a stepping stone to many other pages on Wikipedia. If the name (Trivia) offends editors that much, it should be changed. andreasegde 19:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. In complete agreement with all points made by Andreasedge. Vera, Chuck & Dave 20:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. For subject matter as widely known as the Beatles, even miscellany is notable as long as its sourced, verifiable, yadda yadda.. In addition, it has survived two previous AFDs in less than a year. I agree with Andreasegde that the article can always be renamed if it offends the anti-trivia bias shown by some editors. 23skidoo 21:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Not just bullet points of trivia, converted into Prose and includes many points that cannot be merged. RHB ^{Talk - Edits} 21:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It does seem to feature a lot of good information, but there is a lot of information collected here indiscrimininately. Sections like Business are fairly important and contain good information, for example. Cheers, Lankybugger 21:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Close Nomination. I have now noticed that the previous AfD concluded with a keep. The nominee has failed to provide examples in how this article has deteriorated from the last time, and has offered no new compelling reasons for the AfD. Therefore the nomination is pointless. LessHeard vanU 21:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC) ps. Is it also invalid, or can you just keep nominating articles you don't care for?[reply]
  • Pink Floyd trivia needs it's own deletion discussion, or at least to be included more notably in the current discussion Cheers, Lankybugger 21:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Some people above incorrectly assert that "trivia" is prohibited under WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. In fact, words like "trivia" and "cruft" appear nowhere in that section of policy, and there is not even broad consensus on how to define trivia or when it should or shouldn't be allowed on Wikipedia. Thus I discount the argument that refer to WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. Moreover, it doesn't appear that the article or policy has changed since the previous afd discussions, so on that basis alone I would recommend keep for consistency. Dugwiki 22:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep again. Rename to get rid of the word "trivia" that seems to be the deletion magnet here. Carlossuarez46 03:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete Apart from issues of labeling, I can't believe this unfocused pastiche of an article is on wikipedia and somehow managed to survive a previous AFD (and to the extent WP has formal deletion criteria, this article violates it and thus the fact it was previously up for deletion shouldn't matter). It has no subject but merely presents various bits of information that relate to the Beatles, with the loose theme of presenting "trivia" (or however you wish to say "random bits of information") about the Beatles. The loose format permits a lot of POV material to slide through. Why can't this material be merged into the main Beatles article, or articles about Billy Preston, James Taylor, etc.? Allon Fambrizzi 09:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi[reply]
• Merge. Some very useful data amongst the chaff. Agree that the non-trivial parts should be merged into their respective articles. Arakunem 17:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I must state that this article is definitely not "random bits of information". 1. Every section has a definite connection with The Beatles—every single section. 2. It would be impossible to merge the various pieces of information into The Beatles' articles without making them too confusing to read. 3. The Beatles' articles (and especially this one) are a stepping-stone to many other articles about artists/politicians/places, and institutions. 4. Have you ever tried to navigate your way around a city without a map? 5. Change the name of this article to something else, please... andreasegde 19:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course there's a connection to the Beatles - that's the only logic behind the article. Apart from that, there is simply no logic at all behind it. It's random, you could reassemble it in any way you like and it wouldn't make it any more or less coherent. And the point that you keep making about navigation makes no sense - we use categories to provide a navigation framework, not extra articles of random information. Finally, the problem with this article is not the title, it's the style and content. Whether you call it Beatles miscellany, Beatles stuff that no-one has bothered to edit properly, A stream of consciousness written by Beatles fans or whatever, the point is an encyclopaedia article does not just assemble random bits of information in a haphazard order. It's about synthesising the information, editing out extraneous details, describing the subject of an article in a logical way, informing the reader. This article does none of those things. Worldtraveller 19:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1. You say that the article is logical, but, "apart from that", you say that it is not logical at all. 2. It is not random—the sections are grouped under their respective headers (in alphabetical order, BTW.) 3. You say I keep making the same points, but you have nominated this article for deletion twice in six months. 4. Style and content is something that seems to fluctuate every month on Wikipedia, I'm sorry to say. 5. Editing: Look at the history page, and you will find there have been one or two changes made. 6. "A stream of consciousness" does not apply, and I find that wildly inaccurate. 7. "Haphazard"? (I refer you to point #2) 8. I find the article extremely logical, although it does refer to subjects that have no connection with each other (like Harold Wilson and Cher, for example) but they do have a connection with The Beatles. 9. This article definitely informs the reader, and that is why it is still here (hopefully...) 10. Last point (thankfully :) Would you object to an article detailing the "Seven highest mountains in the world" because they are on different continents? I wish you well. andreasegde 20:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is no logic to the article; its structure is completely haphazard. If you chopped the first section out and put it at the end, it would make no difference at all to the overall sense of it. You couldn't do that with The Beatles, because that's an encyclopaedia article. This one is just an indiscriminate collection of information about the Beatles.
      • However many times I've nominated this for deletion is not relevant to whether your argument about navigation makes sense. It doesn't, honestly. What do you think all the links in The Beatles are for, and all the categories? How is this article supposed to be of any use when only three other actual articles link to it?
      • What is in this article, if it is important to the story of the Beatles, should go in The Beatles. If it's important to the story of someone or something else, it should go in their article. If it's not important enough to be mentioned in either The Beatles or another proper encyclopaedia article, then it's not definitely not important enough to be mentioned in an article that's not about anything.
      • I've got no idea what you're on about with the mountains. Sorry. Worldtraveller 00:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge any useful and referenced information into the relevant articles, much like what happens when the content of trivia sections in articles is trimmed and merged into other sections. (See Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles.) Delete the real trivia as, well, trivia. In their current state these articles resemble (as any trivia section in an article would) "indiscriminate collections of information". Now, I'm not saying none of the information is useful - it's the format in which the information is currently presented that's the problem. The Beatles trivia page is essentially just a list of distantly related facts, some of which hardly have anything to do with the Beatles. For example, the mention that the video for Supergrass's "Alright" was filmed in Portmeirion - what is the relevance of this? I agree with the editor above who it an "unfocused pastiche of an article". There appears to be some serious original research problems with the Pink Floyd trivia article as well. I disagree with the notion implied by some of the above comments that anything Beatles-related is inherently notable. Extraordinary Machine 21:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Supergrass' and the other bands have now been taken out. I thank you for spotting that, Extraordinary Machine. (P.S. Have you told him yet?) andreasegde 09:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Just bloody keep--Crestville 10:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: This article has absolutely nothing to do with Pink Floyd trivia. We are discussing one article here, and not two. andreasegde 13:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Wow... this is a whole article that goes against WP:TRIV. WP:ILIKEIT, but seriously, anything that can't be worked into The Beatles doesn't need to be here.--Isotope23 15:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.