Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jimmy Page Signature Les Paul


 * 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 redirect to Jimmy Page. Consensus is that this doesn't merit an article. Redirects are cheap though and this one has support of two contributors here. Michig (talk) 14:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Jimmy Page Signature Les Paul

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This page is essentially a badly-written sales pitch for the Gibson Jimmy Page Signature models. Not only is it not written in accordance with Wikipedia's quality standards, it is filled with inaccuracies. In accordance with WP:NOTCATALOG, I nominate this page for deletion as it sets a precedent to include every Gibson special edition model with its own article. That is for Gibson's website, not Wikipedia. Stratocaster27''t@lk 04:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  08:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete – We do have a category Category:Gibson Les Paul submodels, but many of those are well-known guitars. I have trouble seeing the encyclopedic significance of this one, or any limited-edition replica. – Margin1522 (talk) 14:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Jimmy_Page. Pax 05:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * A redirect might make sense, but not to that page. There is already adequate coverage of this guitar at Gibson Les Paul, so if it is decided to go with a redirect that would probably be the logical place. The entry at Jimmy Page is about his vintage instruments used in the past. --Stratocaster27''t@lk 16:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Farther down in the section, it covers this one too. Pax 22:34, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, there is adequate coverage in both areas. Which brings us to the original point of this discussion: That the JP Signature page is not needed in the first place. Right now we have 3x redundancy. Stratocaster27''t@lk 08:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  00:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete--nothing worthwhile here to merge, not a helpful search term, etc. Drmies (talk) 21:03, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect - to Jimmy_Page. As a budding self taught plunker, I can easliy see this as a search term. Anything connected to Page is a valid search item/term.   Mlpearc  ( open channel ) 01:30, 27 January 2015 (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.