Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ZZ Top equipment (3rd nomination)


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 18:22, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

ZZ Top equipment
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

The equipment used by ZZ Top members Billy Gibbons and Dusty Hill is covered on their respective pages, where it belongs. This article merely duplicates that information. Popcornfud (talk) 11:58, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:03, 20 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. This is not a band known for exceptional or unusual instrumentation to the extent that it forms its own separate encyclopaedic topic. That is an incredibly rare occurrence for a rock band so it is no slight on ZZ Top to say that this is not the case for them. In a previous AfD the examples of The Beatles and The Who were offered. I feel that these are qualitatively different from ZZ Top as those bands made innovations in rock instrumentation that have been widely recognised as having a major ongoing effect on rock music while ZZ Top, like most other rock bands, didn't. There is no good reason for there to be a separate article about this. Sure, they had their spinning guitars, and we should cover that, but it doesn't justify an article. The instrumentation and equipment can be, and indeed already is, covered adequately in the articles about the band and its members. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:58, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete This article is brief and doesn't have anything on it that couldn't be added to the band's page or the individual musician's page. BuySomeApples (talk) 20:41, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep The last nomination was a Keep and that was just last year so why are we here again? The nomination gives no clue and doesn't even recognise the fact that Dusty Hill has passed while the band plays on.  Or that the detailed book about their equipment and props – Rock and Roll Gearhead – was expanded and republished for the band's 50th anniversary.  There's clearly a lot of notable content here which easily passes WP:LISTN.  The claim that it can be done elsewhere is not a reason to delete as you could say that about anything.  And the "where it belongs" argument is obvious nonsense when the band's membership is so clearly expanding and changing.  Applicable policies include WP:ATD; WP:DELAFD; WP:NEXIST; WP:NOTPAPER; WP:PRESERVE and none of these support deletion.  While the nomination cites no policy at all. Andrew🐉(talk) 06:26, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete The nominator does allude to a policy, wp:contentfork, which is a reason for deletion. DanielRigal's argument is also convincing, this is not a band which needs a separate article dealing with its equipment solely. Avilich (talk) 20:50, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * If there's duplication elsewhere, that's because the nominator has copied information from this page. For example, "move info about equipment from ZZ Top equipment".  Once information has been moved in this way, it is quite improper to delete the edit history because this destroys the attribution to the original editor.  See WP:MAD for details.
 * Essentially what's been happening here is that the nominator failed in the previous nomination which was closed with a keep. They have since been trying to disrupt and destroy the article and now they try nominating again, contrary to WP:DELAFD, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome."
 * Andrew🐉(talk) 22:09, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not attempting to "disrupt or destroy" anything. Possibly you're referring to my revert of your recent re-addition of a large number of uncited claims to the article. After the last nom (March 2020), I did the work to remove uncited claims from the article per WP:VERIFY. As it has now been more than a year, the article is quite different from how it was during the second nom, the article has not grown or improved at all since I removed the uncited clutter, and because the recent death of Dusty Hill has brought more attention to ZZ Top articles, I thought the time was right to check the consensus again. Popcornfud (talk) 22:16, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know why one would go out of his way to care about copyrights in the internet, but, if this is really a concern, the simple solution is for to undo his edit, and then do it again with the article creator's name placed in the edit summary. Avilich (talk) 13:30, 29 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Only one of the sources appears to refer specifically to the band's equipment. Alan Islas (talk) 13:20, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete duplicative. Binksternet (talk) 22:57, 29 August 2021 (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.