Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Beginning


 * 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. Nja 247 18:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

A Beginning

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Appears to have no independent notability per WP:MUSIC. Black Kite 23:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC) 
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  —-- Avant-garde a clue - hexa  Chord 2  23:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: The Beatles as musicians: the Quarry Men through Rubber soul by Walter Everett (ISBN 0195141059, 9780195141054) states the song was first recorded for inclusion to the White Album, which is backed by The rough guide to the Beatles by Chris Ingham (ISBN 1843531402, 9781843531401) but strange enough is doubted by Everett's second part of The Beatles as Musicians (Revolver Through the Anthology, ISBN 0195129415, 9780195129410). The Complete Guide to the Music of the Beatles by Patrick Humphries (ISBN 0711966222, 9780711966222), The unreleased Beatles by Richie Unterberger (ISBN 0879308923, 9780879308926) and The Lennon companion by Elizabeth Thomson and David Gutman (ISBN 0306812703, 9780306812705) also mention the song, but I don't know to what extend. Maybe someone has additional secondary literature. -- Avant-garde a clue - hexa Chord 2  23:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as minor as a Beatles song can be, but it's still a Beatles song, if only just barely. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  23:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, my problem is that if this were by *insert random band name that isn't the Beatles* it'd be redirected in a flash - it in no way passes WP:MUSIC - ("Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable."). Obviously it gets mentioned quite a bit (see above) because it's related to the Beatles, but still ... Black Kite 12:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * We mustn't forget that WP:MUSIC (and similar) aren't a blood oath: they offer guidance toward what, in general, indicates that a subject is likely to pass general notability, specifically coverage in reliable sources. In cases where a band is so epically notable that every song is scrutinised in not just one but several complete discographies published as books, the general notability guideline extends notability to potentially every song by that band.  Of course, the number of artists to achieve this sort of notability in the post-classical era is so small that they can be counted on one hand, so it's not like such coverage is going to flood the encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  14:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. You can insert a *random band name* and you'd have a footnote song by a random band, but The Beatles aren't a random band. &mdash; John Cardinal (talk) 13:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. (Or merge to Anthology 3) I agree with the above comments that Beatles songs have greater inherent notability than those of many other artists, however this particular song has no external references (except the liner notes) which establish the notability of the work. It didn't chart, it wasn't written by the Beatles, and it wasn't released in any format until 1996 when it was only included as filler for another track what was unavailable. Given that, I can't see how this meets our notability criteria, even given its pedigree. JRP (talk) 20:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: trivial independent 3rd party coverage. JamesBurns (talk) 07:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - no independent notability, no charts, not a single. A-Kartoffel (talk) 07:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * A-Kartoffel is a sockpuppet of JamesBurns. Comment struck out. Uncle G (talk) 03:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - no independent notability; only our cultural and generational biases give it even an illusion of notability. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  14:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Anthology 3. I'm happy for Beatles articles to have a slightly lower bar for notability than other artists, but even then this extremely minor throwaway track wouldn't meet that bar.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC).
 * Keep I am in agreement with Mr. Lenahan and Mr. Cardinal regarding the notability of the subject. Pastor Theo (talk) 04:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. (Or merge to Anthology 3) - Yeah, it's the Beatles but this is really scraping the notability barrel. Hazir (talk) 06:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per my above comment. -- Avant-garde a clue - hexa Chord 2  00:12, 23 April 2009 (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.