Talk:Beatle Barkers

Importance

Google: [1] doesn't seem to turn up much notability. Amazon doesn't have it, and they have a lot of obscure stuff... Neither of those are definitive but I'd say give it a week or two, maybe contact some of the folk on this list to ask for info, if nothing pops up, AfD it... that usually gets people to improve articles if they're improvable. Agree it does not belong in the main Beatles category. ++Lar: t/c 05:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll start by leaving a message for the article creator, Longhair. --kingboyk 16:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. -- Longhair 17:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with the removal of the importance tag. It's an album by dogs not by The Beatles :-) I'm sure it's fun - I'd like a copy myself - but is it notable? --kingboyk 17:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any sales information handy, and I'm looking about to see what else this group released. All Music Guide has a listing, though it's rather blank on information :( . I'm not too fussed about the removal from the Beatles category. It's not Beatles material afterall. -- Longhair 17:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

If it stays, we can look at moving it into a subcategory. It doesn't belong in the parent category, subcat is fine. --kingboyk 17:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Barkersbarkers.jpg

Image:Barkersbarkers.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Concerns about content removal

This page reverted back to an original form, basically a stub, in February 2011 after someone removed a thoroughly researched article about the true origin and owners of the Beatle Barkers concept. Many hours of effort were put into verifying content and ensuring it was up to Wikipedia style and standards. it's actually quite an entertaining story and certainly deserves more than a stub with inaccurate information. I have replaced the content back and hope that any efforts to further edit it will begin with the courtesy of contacting myself beforehand to discuss and agree on any points of contention. I am certainly open to this and stand by the informaiton on the page as at March 4, 2011 - Keith Newman "Keith Newman 22:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)"

This page is definitely not up to Wikipedia standards. The content is not sourced and the punny nature is not only unencyclopaedic but also makes the story difficult to understand. While the content removal may have been overdoing it, from a Wikipedia standpoint it was justified. Please try to change the article to a more sober style. --Ulkomaalainen (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Multiple editors agree with this type of "unencylopediac tone/style" concern. User:Keith Newman, you might want to read WP:TONE and help construct a formal encyclopedia article rather than a lampoon style (even if the subject of the article itself is a parody). There also appear to be uncited statements that violate WP:BLP policy. That's completely unacceptable regardless of style. DMacks (talk) 04:54, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Beatle Barkers/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

*Considered outside scope and AFDable... I feel we as a Project don't have to take 'ownership' of this one. It's not a Beatles article, it's an article about an 'amusing' covers album. I've tagged it with {{importance}}; save for a badly worded IP edit saying it was played at parties in "rural Florida" and once got played on a student radio station, there's no assertion of notability. 0 incoming links from mainspace. Probably shouldn't be in category and I think it's a strong AFD candidate too (but I haven't Googled for it yet; waiting for others' comments first). -- Steve (6 March 2006) Update 22 Mar 06, result of AfD was keep. Suppose we have to take it under our wing? If so, what to do? It's a start class article at best. ++Lar: t/c 17:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC) We might need a new category to put the Beatles-related stuff into (see discussion below at Beatlemania (musical)). For now, just regrade it as stub or start class or I guess. --kingboyk 18:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 00:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 09:17, 29 April 2016 (UTC)