Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of the Beatles

'''Note: this is the archived deletion debate for an article where the consensus was to keep. Please do not edit this page. If you have any concerns please bring them up at Talk:History of the Beatles. Thank you.'''

I think it's so silly to have an article separate from the Beatles' main page on the history of the Beatles. It should be included in the main page. --Marcus2 Then I suppose we should have an article entitled, "History of Elvis Presley's career" if the Beatles' history article should be kept. --Marcus2 18:21, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Definitely keep. It is silly not to break off sub-subjects from main articles when they get especially long.  Should we also not have a separate article for History of the United States?  There's obviously enough information to warrant it.  Postdlf  15:24 25 June 2004 (UTC)
 * Certainly keep. We can't have endless amounts of detail packed into a single article. Everyking 15:30, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * The trouble is there are now two articles on the history of the Beatles. The main article is almost all history, and despite calling itself a condensed history is nearly as long as History of the Beatles. The two need to be merged, although that's a mammoth job for someone. Whether we then leave the result in the main article, or spawn a sub-article, isn't so important. DJ Clayworth 15:32, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Merge the two histories. The main Beatles article should have a history section.  If that section is so large that the Beatles article is cumbersome, then a link within it to the spin-off makes sense.  My point about EP's Influence was that the info was a separate (short) article that was really just a section, and the section was not large.  Geogre 15:48, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * I must say that it is and should be possible to contain the Beatles' historical data in the main page, and it is sensible to merge the two histories. --Marcus2
 * Keep. If we replace the condensed history in The Beatles with this one, we get a page 45K in size, which is too big. Having a condensed version in the main Beatles article provides superior overview. Fredrik | talk 16:38, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * As I suspected, this is Marcus's listing out of pique that his Elvis article has been listed here. Keep.  RickK 19:04, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)
 * Coincidentally, I originally thought that this article was too silly to stand on its own. --Marcus2 20:32, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. The Beatles have a lot of history, especially since there are four of them. Elvis' article's history as of now does not merit its own article yet. When I have the time I intend to strip down the Beatles' article's History section to two or three paragraphs instead of the three sections we have right now. Johnleemk | Talk 04:45, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Marcus2, if you want that seperate article on Elvis's influence, you would do well to expand it enough to where it justifies its own article. Don't list other articles because you're annoyed about it. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 06:31, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, of course. The history section in the main article is fine as is. And people who nominate articles for deletion out of pique should get a vigorous slapping; that's hardly the way to maintain Wikipedia's integrity. -Sean Curtin 01:16, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Were you not listening to the whole conversation? I did not necessarily do it out of pique. Marcus2 22:19, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * But anyway, I think I get the point. Keep. Marcus2 12:49, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. There's information on the page that doesn't really belong on the main page for The Beatles, though it does merit inclusion.Thephotoman 04:57, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)