Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pete York Blues Project


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 18:05, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Pete York Blues Project

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The band exists, and thought I could do something with this, but there's not enough information available. Merely a list of CVs of its members. I have hidden the content as a) it reads like a translation, and b) it could be copyvio. Technopat (talk) 17:52, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  D u s t i *poke* 03:03, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 15:42, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete This brings to mind WP:GARAGEBAND. Probably more prominent than the fictional example given but it still applies in my book.  Lazy Bastard  Guy  23:52, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - I think WP:GARAGEBAND is not really applicable here. This group consists of individually notable musicians.  In fact, every member of the group has a Wikipedia page, and arguably they meet WP:BAND point 6.  Are they a supergroup of blues musicians?  Possibly, but given the lack of sources writing about them, I hesitate to say point 6 is met. -- Whpq (talk) 19:52, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - The content is very likely a copyvio. See this.  The article as it stands is completely unsuitable to the point that it would need to be blown up and started over again. I'm not sure this collaboration of musicians is notable, although the individual members are individually notable. Looking at the deleted contents, and the line-up for this project, it looks the same as the Jon Lord Blues Project which is in horrible shape but which at a cursory glance does appear to be notable.  Did this band morph names?  The deleted contents would seem to hint they are the same.  If so a redirect would be appropriate but given the copyvio concerns, that can be done after deleting the article.  -- Whpq (talk) 16:58, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * . Thanks for feedback. I think, without having gone into it too much, that the Jon Lord project is actually a spin-off of this one, but it's evident that the possible copyvio issues are key here (if not at the other page????). Regards, --Technopat (talk) 18:25, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply - I don't know which came first as teh rambling text doesn't make it very clear. It also doesn't help that there is no reliable source discussing teh band's history on which we can ascertain if the Jon Lord Project is a spin-off.  There is no copyvio apparent at the other page.  It may not be well-written, but it doesn't appear to have copied material. -- Whpq (talk) 19:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - After more poking around, I found this site which seems to be the source of copy for this article. I read it again more carefully, and it seems that the Jon Lord Blues Project is the original name of the band, and it has undergone name changers after Lord's pancreatic cancer sidelined him from playing, and ultimately he succumbed to the cancer.  So I'll reiterate that this must be deleted as a copyvio.  The band is best known the Jon Lord Blues Project, so a redirect after the deletion makes sense. -- Whpq (talk) 20:00, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * . No objection :) Regs., --Technopat (talk) 20:37, 22 July 2013 (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.