Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Work Tour
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Spartaz Humbug! 07:09, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Work Tour[edit]
- The Work Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete because per Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Concert tours, this is a non-notable concert tour as it does little else but provide a list of concert dates. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 23:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This article needs to be improved not deleted. There are many available sources and many available images. If needed, I can start spiffying up this article. I Help, When I Can.[12] 01:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I disagree that it violates Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Concert tours. "Such coverage might show notability in terms of artistic approach, financial success, relationship to audience, or other such terms" gives a lot of room for interpretation. It seems that the guideline is in place to prevent articles being created for tours where the only references are "the tour happened". The coverage in the references provided The Work Tour extends beyond mere announcement of the tour. It is the first tour of a very notable ensemble, there is coverage of one of the stars being injured and several dates being sold out. I believe it meets notability guidelines. DubiousIrony yell 03:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't matter. If you want to talk about notable artists look at the Sugababes who've been round extensively longer than The Saturdays yet some of their tours don't have articles. I disagree that The Work Tour is notable. Tours do not inherit notability from their artist/supporting album. As a standalone event the tour is not notable. The article simply provides a list of tour dates. There is no information about the set-up, planning or critical reviews of the tour which would make it notable. Selling out some shows and one member getting injured could be mentioned on the artist's page. Those two small things don't warrant a whole page to list the tour dates. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 17:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the issue with guidelines based on "significant coverage" and significant coverage being defined as notability due to "financial success, artistic approach or other such terms". We obviously have very different standards for 'other such terms'. I interpret it as "if the tour is notable at all on any level beyond 'it just happened' then it should be included" while you set the notability bar higher.About the Sugababes, you are of course correct that notability is not directly inherited and should never be used as the sole guideline for inclusion, but let's not fool ourselves into saying that notability of an artist isn't at least a secondary consideration. I have in fact commented on one of your AfDs, the Sugababes' Overload Tour. I voted to delete as it was not referenced and I could not find any good sources for it on the internet. The Work Tour, on the other hand, is reasonably well referenced. I guess we'll wait for the community to weigh in :) DubiousIrony yell 18:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I judge these nominations based on whether the information could be suitable merged to the artists' page. If you can merge additional information to the artists page and all that's left is tour dates then yes a deletion is required. The absence of tour production and background means a note about injury could easily be listed on the artist's page. if we were talking about more than one paragraph of reception and background then it would be different. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 19:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the issue with guidelines based on "significant coverage" and significant coverage being defined as notability due to "financial success, artistic approach or other such terms". We obviously have very different standards for 'other such terms'. I interpret it as "if the tour is notable at all on any level beyond 'it just happened' then it should be included" while you set the notability bar higher.About the Sugababes, you are of course correct that notability is not directly inherited and should never be used as the sole guideline for inclusion, but let's not fool ourselves into saying that notability of an artist isn't at least a secondary consideration. I have in fact commented on one of your AfDs, the Sugababes' Overload Tour. I voted to delete as it was not referenced and I could not find any good sources for it on the internet. The Work Tour, on the other hand, is reasonably well referenced. I guess we'll wait for the community to weigh in :) DubiousIrony yell 18:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The "Digital Spy" story is all about someone falling over; it is not about the tour. The Glasswerk one could only be used to assert that the girls were 'excited' - and the dates of the tour. Therefore, I simply can't see "significant coverage" for the actual subject - WP:GNG. Chzz ► 12:29, 20 January 2011 (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.