Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rush (band) equipment


 * 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  d elete. - Mailer Diablo 00:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Rush (band) equipment

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

A list of what it says on the cover. BanyanTree 00:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow. Does exactly what it says on the tin, this one.  Still, Delete, with a very remote merge to Rush (band).  -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 01:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge into Rush (band). No point in making a whole article. Lemonflash | (speak out)  01:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Maybe this is mroe important than it seems to music people. It seems very trivial. '  Tayquan' hollaMy work 02:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as indiscriminate, uncited information. If I'm missing something and this is actually relevant to the band AND sources can be found for all this, then merge it. Mr.Z-man  talk ¢ 03:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * weak delete it seems like cataloging for the sake of cataloging, instead of summarizing and presenting material that contributes to an understanding of the topic. If the specific choices make a difference, then they should be presented with prose for context.  I think a history of their equipment with context and explanations would be acceptable, but its current form is just no good, and without sources or much good content, I'm not sure if this is worth keeping. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - I am having a hard time seeing the notability of a list of instruments whose only uniting characteristic is their being used by a given band. If there is something significant here, then it would be better mentioned in Rush (band). --EMS | Talk 03:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Most of the pertinent info already exists at Alex Lifeson, Geddy Lee etc... I don't see the need for this fork (any precedent here?), especially with the non-standard naming. Caknuck 04:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and absolutely do not merge this trivial cruft into the Rush article. RFerreira 06:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete without merge. Pointless trivia. Resolute 06:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:ATT and I can't see how any of it passes WP:N. -- Charlene 06:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:NOT and WP:N. The article only lists instument specs; unnecessary fork. Sr13 (T|C) 09:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Concur with EMS. No reason to exist.  Jody B   talk 10:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect - My inclusionism tells me that I don't want it deleted, although it is entirely un-notable. ;-) Cheers, RelentlessRecusant 12:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete & Do Not Redirect crufty goodness... if there is referenced material it can be put into the band page, however there is no need to keep the redirect... no one is going to search for "Rush (band) equipment". /Blaxthos 15:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Article serves no real purpose. --  Ra nd om   Say it here!  00:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete This article is beyond pointless. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Miskatonic (talk • contribs) 04:44, 8 May 2007 (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.