Talk:2012 Queensrÿche split
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. |
Proposed merge with Queensrÿche
[edit]There is no need for a separate split-off. The topic is not that exciting or important that it warrants an article, and the sources bear that out--it's all court proceedings (primary documents--should not be allowed) and Blabbermouth (unreliable source). Drmies (talk) 19:12, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
- 100% agreed. Though almost all of this info is found on other articles anyway, so it doesn't even need to be merged. Just deleted. This stuff belongs on a fansite, not an encyclopedia. No one except hardcore Queensrÿche fans could possibly care about the subject enough to read through all of it, and I assume that no hardcore Queensrÿche fans would be so uninformed about this subject anyway. I'm honestly tempted just to make this a redirect right now per WP:BOLD. Would anyone but the authors miss it? Friginator (talk) 17:06, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- Disagree: it was suggested by User:EBY3221 on his talk page: "Certainly give the band break-up a subsection. There is a lot of reliable source material. Does it have its own article? It almost should, with so many articles and mentions like this." This is what led to creating an article of its own. --Eddyspeeder (talk) 22:05, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with Eddie, it should have it's own article. TJD2 (talk) 03:29, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- Disagree: it was suggested by User:EBY3221 on his talk page: "Certainly give the band break-up a subsection. There is a lot of reliable source material. Does it have its own article? It almost should, with so many articles and mentions like this." This is what led to creating an article of its own. --Eddyspeeder (talk) 22:05, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
- With the current developments revolving around a settlement, the specifics regarding the trial are no longer relevant on the Queensrÿche page, adding to the rationale to keep this article as a standalone in-depth article on the Queensrÿche split and events leading up to the settlement, while the band's main page focuses on what the band is doing. --Eddyspeeder (talk) 23:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- Seems very non-notable to me.Friginator (talk) 01:08, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- It seems notable, but not for its own article. I don't see many band articles with separate pages for something that went on with them. It should be in the article itself, just as its own subsection. MXVN (talk) 07:11, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- Seems very non-notable to me.Friginator (talk) 01:08, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- With the current developments revolving around a settlement, the specifics regarding the trial are no longer relevant on the Queensrÿche page, adding to the rationale to keep this article as a standalone in-depth article on the Queensrÿche split and events leading up to the settlement, while the band's main page focuses on what the band is doing. --Eddyspeeder (talk) 23:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed. This doesn't really need its own article anymore. Geoff's new outfit should get it's own article, but not the split before the lawsuit was resolved, because it was all under the name "Queensryche" anyway. Dopefish 02:38, 04 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree that this article should be merged back into the main band article. I'm going to redirect this article now, but I will leave the merging of text to interested parties. Right now it looks to me as if the main band article adequately covers the issue, with no additional text needed. Binksternet (talk) 17:56, 12 October 2015 (UTC)