Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of Rush (2nd 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 redirect to Rush (band)#History. Consensus is that this does not need it's own page. It's still a valid search term though, and no one objected to redirecting it to the relevant section in the paretn page. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:54, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

History of Rush[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Product of 2006 FAC, largely unsourced and technically falls under BLP, and many other bands do not have separate History page. Kept in 2008, but consensus may have changed since then. Tonystewart14 (talk) 21:44, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Tonystewart14 (talk) 22:01, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep no valid reason for deletion.....if it needs sources add them......clicking on the find sources link above leeds to thousands of sources on this topic. Moxy (talk) 21:47, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but I don't see why the history section of the main article isn't enough. I feel like that section should be improved rather than have two separate and largely redundant texts. Tonystewart14 (talk) 22:33, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Tonystewart14: A lot of other bands don't have separate history articles. If the effort was made, you could move the information to the main article without compromising quality, I am sure the main article could be re-evaluated for FA status. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 00:06, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant to Rush (band). If any content is worth keeping, move it there. There is no precedent for this article to exist, as it is largely duplication of what's already on the band's article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:29, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Anything that can be moved to the main Rush article, I would like to see it there before it potentially gets deleted. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 22:33, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is made up of the stuff purged from the main article during the FA review..... best not to jam it back in......one of the reasons it lost its FA Satu was because this merger was tried.....and lead to FA demotion......lots of work went in to moving this stuff back to this article .Moxy (talk)

Comment: @Moxy: By your logic, you can't be bothered to actually go through the information and move it to the main article with sources to help up the quality. Black Sabbath has a hstory that is just as long as Rush, but they don't have their own history article. Why is Rush given preferential treatment? Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 00:06, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm a little puzzled... if you have a separate "History" article it's usually because it's much larger than the "summary" in the main article... but that doesn't seem to be the case here – it's only about 300 words longer (out of nearly 5000), which suggests it's largely a duplication of Rush (band)#History, so it doesn't really explain why a separate article is needed or why the main article can't be improved instead. Richard3120 (talk) 23:34, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Richard3120: By Moxy's logic, it would be too much work because a lot of work went into the history article. They don't want to be bothered to actually go through the information put in the main article and source it to help up the quality. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 00:06, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Duplicative of the history section of Rush. Huge swaths of unsourced fan essay, as opposed to the band page, which is sourced out pretty well. Sort of resembles a POV fork in that regard. Carrite (talk) 23:15, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TPH and Carrite. Zhangj1079 (T|C) 18:26, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree that this is mostly repetitive--if less elaborate--information from the parent article. It's problematic that much of it appears original research (although portions are sourced) and POV rather than encyclopedic. Cut that stuff away and what's left is something that more properly belongs with the parent article; indeed, that is the place one would expect to find this information. ShelbyMarion (talk) 15:53, 30 August 2017 (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.