Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Rutles fictional albums


 * 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   delete. Consensus needs to be based on policy not headcount. Policy is quite clear that notability is based on specifi references discussing the subject in non-trivail terms. In this case there is no reliable sourcing provided and notability has been asserted rather then demonstrated. I therefore see the policy based consensus here to be delete. (including atrout to Torkmann for dissing the Beatles) Spartaz Humbug! 10:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

List of The Rutles fictional albums

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

Unnotable list of fictional albums for a fictional band. Fails WP:N andWP:LIST. Only "sources" are a blog and a fansite. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 20:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I am proud to be the first voter for deleting this god awful article.  What a waste of time and energy on this list of false albums by a false band that nobody has cared about since 1995, which was based on a real band nobody has cared about since 1972. Torkmann (talk) 21:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

--Shirt58 (talk) 12:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't see how the article fails WP:N or WP:LIST. While the band is fictional, the parody act was not and its activity is notable. I am not a particular fan of the Rutles, but many readers are. I agree it needs more sources, but that's a separate complaint. &mdash; John Cardinal (talk) 22:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * A Hard Day's Delete This seems to fall under the adage that "Wikipedia is not a joke book". Aren't all of these simply parodies of the titles of The Beatles non-fictional albums?  Apparently, there were real Rutles albums, and someone felt that it took away from The Rutles if there was a mention of any of the humor that made them famous in the first place.  No, if The Beatles can take a joke, so can The Rutles.  Mandsford (talk) 22:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per John Cardinal and in complete bafflement re: Mandsford's meaning, above (no offense, I might even agree, but I can't make it out). Torkmann, on the other hand, seems to have dubbed the Beatles non-notable circa 1972, so I'm pretty sure he has some reading to do. -Miskaton (talk) 23:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Together: I would argue for Wikipedia:Consensus on this. The Rutles were a real "fictional band" and put out actual comedy black vinyl. The article, however, appears to me be hopelessly "in-world". The content may be potentially encyclopedic, but at present it fails WP:CRYSTAL. Hope the WP:Admin who closes this AfD isn't swayed by any WP:Here comes the Fun.  Or something like that.
 * Taking a moment to distance myself from the humor (much to be had, and well done too), I want to be clear that articles about fictional persons or events are perfectly legitimate. It's, perhaps, not typical for the WP:MUSIC crowd, but such is the nature of genre-busting. This article is no more or less reasonable than Magical objects in Harry Potter. -Miskaton (talk) 18:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  --  The  left orium  20:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't quite see how the band is terribly funny but ... whatever, to each their own. The fictional band is notable and this is an appropriate child article to the main. It certainly could be improved but no reason to delete even though it's not my thing. -- Banj e  b oi   16:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge to The Rutles. I'm not convinced this list is notable in its own right; it seems to lack references to reliable sources. The band is notable, yes, but that doesn't mean a 'list of album names mentioned in their films' is. In addition, it's frankly a bit confusing - when I first saw this article, I thought it was a list of real albums released by the fictional band (i.e. like Spinal Tap discography). That potential for confusion is probably reason alone for it to be deleted, merged or rewritten. Robofish (talk) 16:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep...but within reason. It does serve a purpose, in-as-much as any listing on a faux band can serve. "Spinal Tap" is a fine example. My only complaint is there is too much fan speculation. Keep it to the facts. No guessing. If it's going to be about the work created by Eric Idle and Neil Innes , lets keep it in their words. In short: if there isn't a book , article , or liner note written by them...leave it out!( Save the "speculations" ,"guesswork" ,etc. for the discussion page. ) Harvey J Satan (talk) 01:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Nothing wrong with fictional bands (heck, Spinal Tap has succeeded). But a list of never produced albums that link to actual songs by someone else? ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 12:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If something is misleading or poorly linked that is a clean-up issue. -- Banj e  b oi   22:59, 5 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.