Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rush equipment (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 delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:57, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rush equipment[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This list of commercial product endorsements is almost completely unreferenced. Further, it's redundant to the "equipment" sections in the individual musicians' articles. The band as a whole identifies no specific equipment, so there's no added value in combination. Not surprisingly there are contradictions between this articles content and the individual artists.

The previous AfD raised some of these concerns but after 14 years there doesn't seem to be much progress in sourcing these statements.

It seems better to document the equipment endorsements by artist since they also do solo work and side projects outside of the band.

It's easiest to delete this article and leave the content in the artists' pages (where it already exists, and is far better-referenced). Mikeblas (talk) 20:55, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:57, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Disclosure - I like Rush. Nonetheless, longstanding convention requires that we have sources to show that this is notable and thus worth keeping in an encyclopedia. Without these sources, this is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. If there's a related business relationship/equipment endorsement that is reported, that can go in the individual artist's article. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 04:41, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:34, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I can see no evidence that this list, and the article is essentially just a list, passes WP:NLIST. Even if it theoretically did, I can see no reason why this is a necessary split from related articles. Devonian Wombat (talk) 10:08, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FAN. Good grief - insanely compendious, almost totally unsourced but IMHO wholly totally unnecessary. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:30, 21 July 2022 (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.