Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Truth About Love Tour

Truth About Love Tour

(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)[reply]

Must Keep The sources are good and this page is very helpful to people. Sure the article might need a little improving but should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BennySOTOTW:) (talk • contribs) 11:57, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Being helpful or not has never been a reason to keep an article, we keep articles because they have encyclopedic merit, not because they are useful to someone as a guide (WP:NOT#GUIDE. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:06, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

First is a deadlink. This gives 4 paragraph at the end of a list of other news: [6]. This is 4 sentences: [7]. Is [8] a press release? They even include where to buy it. It's a small local newspaper Chester Chronicle, not a great indicator of notability. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:54, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Are you SERIOUS? How are [9], [10], [11], [12] 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)[reply]

Most of these lack any real content beyond what the press release would say. They mostly consist of a list of dates etc and where to buy, IRWolfie- (talk) 00:06, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep The tour is by a highly notable artist and has been talked about in multiple third party sources mentioned by those above. Ryan Vesey 04:06, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Highly Notable (weasel} artist does not make a notable tour. Tours are almost never notable... If there are reliable third party sources about the tour, not the artist, why are they not in the article. That is the idea of references. As to the above tags [1] reads 404 error to me. [2] is usable. [3] is usable, but says little. [4] is a press release. (first party) [5] is a press release (first party), the title of the publication tells you that. [6] is second party if not first. [7]-[9] appear to be press releases. So you have two third party sources, neither of which are in the article. Are you going blank this also. Let's not confuse the issue with facts, right? -- :- ) Don 21:45, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep it is a highly notable tour about a highly notable artist, and if this goes, then many other tours - for instance Rihanna's Diamonds World Tour will have to go too. Jagoperson (talk) 21:56, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the existence of this other article is meant to show. If it isn't notable, it should also be deleted, if it's notability can be demonstrated, it should be kept. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:02, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:CRYSTAL. The info could be added to the artist's WP article for now, but I don't like it being a stand alone article when it hasn't even happened yet, I don't care how many good sources it has. But it doesn't really matter what I think, so if it is kept, could I suggest that "upcoming" tour be changed to "planned" or "pending" tour, since there have been numerous examples of artist's pulling out of highly publicized tours at the last minute, whether it be a break down in contract negotiations, health reasons, or otherwise. Ditch ∝ 02:14, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As Emeraude has noted, tours are not inherently notable, and you cannot prove the notability of a tour before it has even occurred. In addition, as Ditch Fisher has said, this violates WP:CRYSTAL. There is nothing here that cannot be mentioned in the artist's article. The debate about first-party versus second-party sources is beside the point, all the sources talk about an event in the future. The keep votes above do not cite any policy in support. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 03:18, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per comments above. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 09:12, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:TOOSOON. Also lacks substantial coverage in multiple independent sources. The sources listed are mostly trivial and routine concert announcements. The only source that represents substantial coverage is more about the artist, with the concert tour itself relagated to the background. Until there is substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources supporting the fact that the tour is notable, the material here can be presented, in greatly reduced form, in the article on the artist. Wikipedia is not a valid venue for concert announcements or promotion. There's a lot of WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:LOTSOFSOURCES evident in the keep !votes. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:07, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete/merge. Per DV. Concert dates are added; concert dates are cancelled; such information is best looked for outside the Pedia, for people who are interested. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:54, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Yes, there is not that much information pertaining to it, but that is not our fault. P!nk has released very little information on the tour and was still in the process of planning it during the live web chat with her fans in which she confirmed it. But the article should be kept because more information will be available soon and there are articles for all her other tours. Besides, in the live web chat, she does give us some important information - she pretty much tells us "Blow Me", "How Come You're Not Here", and "Beam Me Up" will all be on the setlist for the tour, and she hinted at possible openers. I think the article should be expanded, but I don't think it should be deleted. The above comments stating why it should be kept brought up some good points, too. ---Tsu'tey♫ (talk) 01:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a crystal ball argument; you acknowledge the lack of sources but say the future will show it is notable. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:59, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:CRYSTAL, which pretty much trumps any other concerns about notability. As the tour is not scheduled to start until February 2013, any "coverage" about it now is purely speculative until the tour actually happens. MSJapan (talk) 06:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete via WP:CRYSTAL. Mediran ^{talk to me!} 08:38, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's absolutely no reason why this article should be deleted and articles for other upcoming concert tours such as Warped Tour 2013, Ten: The Hits Tour 2013, Red Tour, One Direction 2013 World Tour, Dreamchaser World Tour, Depeche Mode tour 2013, Diamonds World Tour, and Because We Can - The Tour be kept. MovieBuff74 (talk) 23:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Umm... read WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's some amount of difference between WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and precedence. Ryan Vesey 13:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On what basis are you saying that a "precedence" exists? Sounds like baloney to me. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:44, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At some level, consensus exists because the act occurs. I was flabbergasted that anyone would want the article deleted because I've found it to be incredibly common to have articles on concert tours before they occur. Ignore my comment if you wish because there's no way I'm going to waste my time looking for examples because I really don't care that much about this article. On the topic of WP:CRYSTAL I again am going off of precedence that concert tours by notable artists are notable. (Note the 5 articles on P!nk tours) If that is indeed the case, the policy doesn't apply because the event is not speculative and the policy doesn't apply to events that are "notable and almost certain to take place". There is no speculation in process because the existence of the tour has been confirmed. Ryan Vesey 16:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there is specualtion, confirmed tour or not. Pink could drop dead tomorrow. She could become so embroiled in scandal that all the venues pull out. Now, these would be notable events, but they are just two possibilities that there is still specualtion. Quite simple, it ain't happened until it's happened, and until then WP:CRYSTAl applies most definitely. As does WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - this tour must be notable for itself, and cannot be justified just because other tours have articles (perhaps they shouldn't). Emeraude (talk) 17:27, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the tour was in some way cancelled, it would be notable for being cancelled and that would become part of the article. The Olympics could technically be cancelled and the 2018 Winter Olympics wouldn't occur, but that doesn't mean it is WP:CRYSTAL. Ryan Vesey 18:45, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On that argument, the article should not be created until the tour is cancelled!!!! Emeraude (talk) 21:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is no longer speculation. Speculation is if a couple of sources said P!nk might do a tour in 2013. We wouldn't create an article because some people think there might be a tour. In this case, the tour has been confirmed by P!nk. And don't use multiple exclamation points, it's childish. Ryan Vesey 21:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Must keep. The whole argument about not writing articles that cover future tours are just ridiculous. Like many before me have written here, look at the Diamonds World Tour. This spring the article about Madonna's MDNA Tour existed although it hadn't started yet. The Nicki Minaj Pink Friday: Reloaded Tour-article existed before the tour started and as mentioned above so does the article One Direction's upcoming tour. I could go on, but I think I've made my point. User:Elste007 22.08, 14 November 2012 (UTC)