Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Beatles Wit


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 00:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The Beatles Wit

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Appears to be Original Research.  ttonyb (talk) 21:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: There has been extensive discussion on this article being created at Talk:The Beatles. &mdash;Akrabbimtalk 22:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: It's not made clear where in the article there is original research; the article largely consists of cited comments by The Beatles themselves, George Martin and well known Beatle commentators - Mark Lewisohn and Philip Norman. The idea for the article came from a remark by George Harrison. Apepper (talk) 23:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sources are cited, but see WP:Synthesis. —Largo Plazo (talk) 00:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree that the article is written to advance an opinion - other than I was surprised that the main Beatles article didn't mention how the Beatles wit advanced their career. In fact, I've been surprised at how influential it's been; I'd remembered George Harrison saying that the Beatles were genuinely funny and that he thought it was a big part of the Beatles "thing", but I didn't realise how much it effected their chance of getting a contract, the amount of press coverage they received, who directed their films. It was suggested when the article was first proposed that it be incorporated into the main article - I'd be happy with that, although the article is quite long as it is... Apepper (talk) 19:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Would something like The Beatles and the media cover the same amount of information (maybe a bit more), and be more neutral/encyclopedic, instead of focusing just on wit/humor? &mdash;Akrabbimtalk 19:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment:I've read the reasons for proposed deletion now; I disagree that the Beatles' Wit is unencyclopedic as a topic - I think the quotations in the article, particularly from Georges Harrison & Martin and Ringo, make it clear that their wit was unusual; it affected whether they were offered a recording contract by Martin - he has repeatedly said in interview that it was the Beatles wit and charisma that he thought would sell the band, not the music which, as he says, at that stage wasn't that impressive. Conversely, it made the band respect Martin because he'd worked with their comedy heroes. It changed the approach of the American press and affected the selection of Richard Lester as the director of the first Beatles' film. Apepper (talk) 23:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * People who succeed often have collateral characteristics that help them establish relationships, gain acceptance, and appeal to audiences, and these traits are often even mentioned in the media. It doesn't strike me that those traits become worthy of encyclopedia articles all their own. What else would we have: freestanding articles about Jimmy Stewart's bashful demeanor and Tom Cruise's winning smile and Dolly Parton's legendary warmth? —Largo Plazo (talk) 00:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Move applicable content to Wikiquote Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete does not meet WP:GNG and there is no indication of how it might RadioFan (talk) 19:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Going through the WP:GN; Significant coverage; there are clearly a large number of books about The Beatles and most of them mention The Beatles wit. The majority of contemporary press articles are orientated towards witty remarks made by the band.
 * Reliable; all the sources are widely published and owned.
 * Secondary Sources; Although The Beatles' Anthology is used to show what the band themselves thought of the importance of wit to their career, most of the sources are third party.
 * Independent of the Subject; as with the above, although George Martin's work might be considered non-independent, why would he lie about such a thing? Norman Smith corroborates the story.
 * Presumed; hopefully I established reliable sources for the subject being suitable.Apepper (talk) 06:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Delete, following up on my comment above. Regardless of Apepper's comments about the Beatles' wit meeting GNG, it doesn't do so independently of coverage of the Beatles, and it's an ancillary trait, however much it may have been remarked on. I guess one way to look at it is that a Wikipedia article shouldn't make a case; it shouldn't have an underlying thesis. This article seems to have a thesis behind it: it's an analysis, however well sourced it is, written to support the thesis that the Beatles' wit had a lot to do with their success. —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  -- —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  -- —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:57, 16 February 2010 (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.