Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Truth About Love Tour

Truth About Love Tour

Truth About Love Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Without even referring to WP:CRYSTAL which it violates terribly. The only source to the tour is first party information, except for a mention in the first reference. No other notability presented, third-party or otherwise. Presents as factual Wikipedia information which is only a promoter's hope based on procuring venues and dates, and not disappointing ticket holders. :- ) Don 04:20, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

• Weak keep The sources seem notable and independent of the sources. The article itself could use improvement, but still should be kept. Vacation9 (talk) 05:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. Oh, you still think it contains "Only first party information"? Please take an actual LOOK at the article. I've made it my duty to not use first party information. The article is an acceptable stub. Not much about it is revealed yet, as it hasn't begun yet. Statυs (talk) 12:53, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

  For the record, the entire Australian leg has sold out. So it's certainly not a "hope". These are all confirmed dates that are on sale. Statυs (talk) 12:55, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. Tours are not inherently notable, something has to make them so. A tour that hasn't even happened cannot be notable. If it turns out after the event to be notable, recreate. Until then, this is advertising and hype. Emeraude (talk) 17:33, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• Keep Tours are not inherently notable, but that doesn't care here. This tour has proven to be very notable IMO. And, also, sources out there that are not on the article may help prove the notability of it. Remember that content on the article is not the only thing we have to assess when voting/nominating at AFD. — ΛΧΣ21™ 02:24, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• Here, I found several interesting sources covering the topic [third-party ones]: Midland Daily News [1], Chester Chronicle [2], Billboard [3], Herald Sun [4], PRWeb [5]. I guess this is only a little proof of notability. — ΛΧΣ21™ 02:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• What are you talking about? Those are clearly first party sources. Get yourself together Hahc! Learn what third party sources are! They come from Mars! Statυs (talk) 02:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: Are you SERIOUS? How are [6], [7], [8], [9] first party sources? Tell me that and tell me no more. You've yet to respond to that at all. "and not disappointing ticket holders" What is that supposed to mean? Statυs (talk) 02:26, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely First party souces. DUH... First party does not mean the first one to have a party. That is Fraternity stuff. -- :- ) Don 02:57, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• • • • SOMEBODY WITH 1/2 A BRAIN TRY TO UNDERSTAND 1ST PARTY -- :- ) Don 02:57, 10 November 2012 (UTC)