Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Beatles concerts


 * 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. Consensus here seems to indicate this list is acceptable. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

List of The Beatles concerts

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

WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Really, a list of every gig they ever played? The WP:NOT page gives an exception for "mention of major events, promotions or historically significant [concerts]" - nobody can argue every gig they ever played was major or historically significant. Ironholds (talk) 01:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep I see the objection but for this group I also see the value of this as a breakout page from the many articles on the Beatles. JJL (talk) 01:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you explain your keep rationale in more detail? I can't seem to make sense of it (sorry, possibly the 19 hours without sleep so far). If I understand correctly, you're saying having it as a separate article is good because it gives you a place to store all the info on the Beatles. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information - we should only be keeping relevant and useful information, and I can't see how a list of every gig ever falls under that. Ironholds (talk) 01:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't see this as indiscriminate--it discriminates based on the group and on the type of event (concerts, not other types of appearances). It's not trivia, and the events listed would (with some possible exceptions at the beginning) have been highly newsworthy events; given the success of the Beatles, the lesser ones are historically significant in retrospect. So while I see your concern about every minor gig they ever played being listed, I still feel that this is a reasonable breakout-for-length of the main article. JJL (talk) 15:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 02:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I am familiar with WP:USEFUL, however, I used this article last week when I turned to Category:The Beatles concert tours last week and couldn't find The Beatles' 1966 world tour. I'm not really a fan of the Beatles, but I think this one might be worth breaking the rules. The same thing has been done for U2 but the dates are just broken down by tour. It's conceivable that someone might use this list to build similar tour articles for the Beatles. Location (talk) 04:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep simply out of historical significance. riffic (talk) 07:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * A list of every Beatles gig, regardless of their merit or importance or value, is historically significant? Ironholds (talk) 13:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * quite. riffic (talk) 13:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  -- Cyber cobra  (talk) 08:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The band's importance means that this is of encyclopedic interest.--Michig (talk) 08:31, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information - we should only be keeping relevant and useful information, which isn't every Beatles gig ever played in the history of the universe. The fact that the Beatles are more subjectively "important" than other bands isn't a valid argument. Ironholds (talk) 13:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * there's nothing subjective about this. The beatles were huge. how huge? no one else, except for perhaps Elvis, has come close or will ever come close to their record sales, for example. This should be kept out of pure historical significance riffic (talk) 13:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not an indiscriminate list, and you should avoid describing other people's views as invalid arguments. For a lot of people this information will be both relevant and useful. With some added descriptive text about their tours and performances it would be perfectly encyclopedic, and the history of The Beatles is somewhat shorter than that of the universe. --Michig (talk) 13:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * A list of every possible element without regard to importance is the very definition of an indiscriminate list. Ironholds (talk) 13:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No. This list is not indiscriminate.  It is limited to Beatles concerts, not every concert that has ever been played.  This argument is like saying a list of United States Presidents should exclude the less important ones or else it is an indiscriminate list. Rlendog (talk) 18:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. Is that all of the concert dates? Seriously? If the list were wikified, and isn't going to get much longer, this would be okay. Abductive  (reasoning) 11:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It actually isn't, they left off the Hamburg residency, for example. riffic (talk) 12:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep I tend to agree with the nominator that we don't need a list of "every gig they ever played" (back in the old days, "gig" had nothing to do with the capacity of your computer). I think that such a list should only begin when a band has reached the status of playing (as the main act) before thousands of fans at stadiums and indoor arenas, since those are major events.  Before then, the list of bars and ballrooms is trivia, along the same lines of a great baseball player's appearances as a rookie in the minor leagues.  In the case of The Beatles, perhaps a comprehensive list is more justified; even then, however, I think that's more of the "George Washington Slept Here" type of trivia. Mandsford (talk) 14:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, WP:LISTCRUFT, WP:FANCRUFT and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. DJ 22:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * with no explanation how this article falls under the criteria in these essays, this !vote carries little weight. riffic (talk) 05:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It's fairly self-explanatory. Listcruft - this is an indiscriminate list. Fancruft - this is of importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans. Not a directory - see my nom statement. Ironholds (talk) 05:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Nothing is self-explanatory. Proof by assertion is not an explanation. Such claims require an explanation of which policy the content fails and explanation of why that policy applies as the rationale for deletion.
 * Alright, keep your hard hat on and wait until he replies then. Ironholds (talk) 06:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And to refute the claims of WP:cruftcruft, Listcruft is meant for lists which are unmaintainable or unlimited, which this is not. This list is made up of verifiable and well referenced events of historical importance. The claim of fancruft is laughable, since no one would delete List of monorail systems as being of interest only to Railfans, or List of Big Brother (UK) housemates being only of interest to user:dalejenkins. Again, there is a significant historical interest in these concerts, especially the early ones which were documented, formative years for this band. riffic (talk) 06:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, Listcruft gives a variety of possible meanings. But wait! proof by assertion is not an explanation. So... keep your hat on, and wait for Dalejenkins to explain. Ironholds (talk) 06:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep A perfectly reasonable list for very major artists. We could well have similar lists for other musicians, including classical ones.    DGG ( talk ) 14:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - The list is not a directory and a perfectly appropriate and valid list topic. Rlendog (talk) 18:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Per WP:LSC, it is appropriate to have "list articles that are created explicitly because the listed items do not warrant independent articles." While it may be true that not every Beatles' concert warrants a separate article, that does not disqualify them from being the subject of a list article. And given the Beatles' popularity and importance, the list is completely appropriate. Rlendog (talk) 18:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep A perfectly valid WP:LIST for the most notable band in music history, which played a defining role in popular music and culture -- and a finite number of historically notable gigs. I haven't seen this info gathered together so succinctly anywhere else. . Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:00, 21 August 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.