Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unreleased Lennon–McCartney songs

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. The article has become well-referenced during the course of this discussion, invalidating the early deletes. Spinning Spark 20:53, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unreleased Lennon–McCartney songs

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significance to keep this article. Also no sources. I suggest merging information with their own articles. TV (talk) 19:12, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article has no valid sources as previously stated, and it's actually to do with the Beatles, not John Lennon and Paul McCartney separately in the first place based on its one source, which is hardly reliable... Lukeno94 (talk) 20:45, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Songs they wrote together for the Beatles were credited as Lennon–McCartney, so I don't get your comment that "it's actually to do with the Beatles." Were you confused on that point? postdlf (talk) 15:21, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:16, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:16, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the main articles are too large, and this is more than merely fancruft. Even their unrecorded songs were important for the development of modern popular music in the western canon. Bearian (talk)

But are you missing the point that there's ONE source and it's Blogspot? Which isn't even a source and should actually be removed right now. TV | talk 19:39, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Believed to have been written based on one unreliable source makes this too unreliable for WP. QuiteUnusual ^TalkQu 20:00, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unlike most of the other "Unreleased XYZ" articles up for discussion, this topic appears to be notable. No reliable sources were present in the article at the time of this nomination, but it seems that a good amount of coverage (not mere directory/database listings) exists, particularly at Google Books. I've attempted to expand the article incorporating some of these references. Gongshow ^Talk 11:47, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems notable. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 12:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.