Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Never Be the Same Tour (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 and redirect to Camila (album). Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:06, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Never Be the Same Tour[edit]

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

This article keeps getting recreated, but as far as I can see it still fails WP:NTOUR and still violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Softlavender (talk) 00:08, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging participants in the original AfDs for their current opinion: @Drmies, Richard3120, Narky Blert, BD2412, Cornerstonepicker, and Melodies1917:. Pinging closer Spartaz as well. Softlavender (talk) 00:11, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note from nominator: The two main contributors, Xanaxaddit (talk · contribs) and IonutBiLvS (talk · contribs), are SPAs and appear to be sockpuppets of each other (Courcelles already blocked one as a sock of IonutB56 (talk · contribs), who created the previous, now-deleted, version of the article -- see previous AfD) and possibly COI. May need to salt this title. Softlavender (talk) 00:22, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And now I've got the other one, indeffed as likely sock. Courcelles (talk) 00:32, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Concert tours are not inherently non-notable. The bigger issue with the previous versions of the article was that it was for a planned future tour, not one for which any dates had yet been played. A month into the tour, there are some reviews to look at - [1], [2], [3]. I would suggest that we ~~keep~~ merge and redirect to Camila (album), which has a section on the tour, and improve. bd2412 T 00:46, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BD2412. The first review is from a non-notable venue (a student newspaper) and it pans her performance; the second review is from a local weekly online "news site", and the Billboard article is just a short mention that Pharrell showed up at one performance. None of that remotely satisfies WP:NTOUR in my view, especially in this time where everyone has a blog-site masquerading as a music review site, and concerts also get reviewed by non-notable local "news sites". None of those things confer any kind of lasting notability. -- Softlavender (talk) 00:57, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a rule that only positive reviews count? A review panning a tour is as legitimate a consideration as one heaping praise on it. The fact that it is a student newspaper is not particularly relevant to me; student newspapers at large universities can have standards equal to the "real" newspapers in a small town. Neither do I have a problem with a local weekly. If not kept, it should probably me merged and redirected into the article on the performer or the album being supported by it. However, my vote stands. bd2412 T 01:02, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, and this is my last response, I personally suggest you re-read WP:NTOUR. A concert tour by a known artist is going to get reviewed somewhere, somehow. That does not make the tour itself encyclopedically notable enough for its own article. If that were the case, every still-performing singer and band who has a Wikipedia article would have an article on every single one of their tours post-2010, because at least two or three of the tour's performances will have been reviewed somewhere online. In my opinion, all this article serves as is a promotional directory of the performance dates and venues, so not only does it fail WP:NTOUR, it violates WP:NOTCATALOGUE and WP:NOTPROMO. -- Softlavender (talk) 01:14, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You asked for my opinion. The entire relevant portion of WP:NTOUR is:

Concert tours are probably notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Such coverage might show notability in terms of artistic approach, financial success, relationship to audience, or other such terms. Sources that merely establish that a tour happened are not sufficient to demonstrate notability. Tours that cannot be sufficiently referenced in secondary sources should be covered in a section on the artist's page rather than creating a dedicated article.

There are multiple sources available (I only did a very cursory search, I am sure there are more), and those that have been presented here are clearly independent, and I see no reason to question their reliability. These sources clearly go beyond merely establishing "that a tour happened". Per the stated policy, if this article is not kept, it "should be covered in a section on the artist's page", which would necessitate a merge and redirect. bd2412 T 01:24, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I said I wouldn't reply again, but a local online weekly reviewing one concert, and a student newspaper reviewing another concert, does not constitute significant coverage of the tour itself. As I said, if it did, we'd have a Wikipedia article on every single still-performing singer or group's tours since as far back as 2010 or further. Softlavender (talk) 02:35, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BD2412, this is why I keep saying sourced need to cover the tour as a tour. A concert review does not do that. It does not discuss "artistic approach, financial success, relationship to audience", etc. You are welcome to think that a review or two is enough, but that is simply not true. Drmies (talk) 22:36, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am persuaded by the above that the current content does not support support a separate article. I have changed my !vote to merge and Camila (album), which has a section on the tour. I think that this is a better target than the page on the artist, as the tour is specifically to support the album. bd2412 T 23:51, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tours are all-too frequently thought to be notable. They need coverage as a tour to be notable; reviews cannot easily discuss the tour as a tour. So no, if a review does nothing more than discuss the show, the one show, it can't be argued that it says anything about the tour. As is typical for such articles (setting aside the usual table porn including shows, setlists, etc.) is a. a set of announcements, two or three lines long, that person X is going on tour, and b. a review or two. Well, that's pretty much what we have here. Delete. Drmies (talk) 01:17, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(I am so going to nick "table porn" for future use.) Narky Blert (talk) 21:03, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Narky Blert, go for it. If you ever look at K-pop articles, or those articles for those TV shows where stupid people vote for or against other stupid people, you know exactly what I mean. Maybe--because what I also mean is that such tables have a tendency to present a lot of information in a pretty way, and thereby more or less advertise the content, by making it seem more important than it is. It's the equivalent of Calvin handing in his useless and unfinished school project in a professional binder. Drmies (talk) 13:59, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: I don't seek such articles out, but as a DABfixer they keep finding me. I do know what you mean. It's a variant of WP:REFBOMB. Narky Blert (talk) 22:33, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:39, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:39, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:39, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:39, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt (or, redirect to Camila Cabello and salt). There is still no evidence that this tour is notable as a tour, and there is way too much sockpuppeteering going on (see the posts by User:Softlavender and User:Courcelles, above).

Wikipedia is not a gig guide. Narky Blert (talk) 20:55, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Narky Blert: Would you agree with my above assessment that Camila (album) is a better redirect target? the tour is in support of the album, and already has a section in that article. bd2412 T 23:54, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Modifying !vote to redirect to Camila (album) and salt in the light of User:BD2412's suggestion of a better target than the one I had proposed. Narky Blert (talk) 01:23, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:27, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect with the Tour section of the Camila album article. (also, not sure what is meant by "delete and salt".) Melodies1917 (talk) 15:32, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Melodies1917: As an FYI - WP:SALT. Narky Blert (talk) 19:48, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the tour has its coverage, modest but it's there. The article for Camila (album) is long enough. It could have better wording tho. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 18:19, 27 April 2018 (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.