Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of Rush

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 Snow Keep Non Admin Close Dusti^SPEAK!! 17:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History of Rush

This is dealt with in the main Rush article. This 'history' is just an expanded version. The Rolling Stones have been around for a similiar amount of time, and no individual history article is required. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 18:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article was spun out of the main one during the FAC in order to keep the text at a reasonable kb size. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 18:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't a reason to keep. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 19:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arguably, but your nomination kinda reads like WP:OTHERSTUFF. The article details the history of a major notable band that if placed in the main article would severely bloat it with extraneous detail. For readers who are interested in more information, this article exists. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 19:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 18:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously notable and widely-covered, and the article is wide in coverage. It could be better-sourced though, but this isn't GA-review, it's an attempt to throw the whole thing off Wikipedia. This seems like a Catch-22 which comes up more and more often... We're told that articles should to be kept from getting too large, and that when one section takes over its bounds at the main page, it should be broken away into a separate article... And then it is nominated for deletion... Dekkappai (talk) 19:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to add that "Broken away during FA Review" is most certainly a good argument for keeping. This is an indication that the article is of a very high quality, and deals with, in more detail, a subject covered in a Feature Article. The fact that work on the Rolling Stones article has apparently not progressed as far as the one on Rush is entirely irrelevant to this AfD discussion. I suggest Speedy-closing this AfD. Dekkappai (talk) 19:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dekkappai. It sounds like the version in the main article is a shortened version of this, not the other way around. Maxa megalon 2000 19:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dekkappai, and per Wikipedia:Article size#A rule of thumb. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: "Because the Rolling Stones don't have one" isn't a reason to delete. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 21:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the Main is too long as a result of the history. Page needs to split.Pdeitiker (talk) 21:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Incidentally. I just took a look at The Rolling Stones article. It looks like it's getting a bit long. Maybe a section could be summarized, and broken off? History maybe? Dekkappai (talk) 21:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Conforms to WP:Summary style. Rush is a long-lived band with considerable history. Comparison with Rolling Stones article is irrelevant. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; Conforms to WP:SS, and Rush (band) is indeed quite long and doesn't need all the minutiae contained in this article, which would be the only other place for it. —BorgHunter (talk) 01:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Let it snow, let it snow, let it snow. JuJube (talk) 03:33, 28 June 2008 (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.