Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Wall Live (2010/2011 Tour)

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 keep. Stifle (talk) 13:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wall Live (2010/2011 Tour)

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

An article for a music tour that has not yet started. Included references are either promotional in nature, fan-based or are from primary sources. The fact that it's a Roger Waters' tour is irrelevant as notability isn't inherited. This article is basically just a list of prospective tour dates, in effect acting as an advertisement for the tour yet not not really giving any encyclopaedic information. A similar article, from the same creator, was speedied a few days ago. This article's CSD tag was removed by an IP editor without comment. Fred the Oyster (talk) 09:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The tour will be notable for presenting The Wall in full which hasn't been done since Berlin. It will have more shows than the original Wall tour. And it is notable for having fans submit content in the form of pictures of loved ones who have died in wars. For these reasons, I believe it passes the criteria for tours that are laid out at WP:MUSIC. Dismas|^(talk) 11:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Will be notable"? "It will have"? Definitely WP:CRYSTAL territory if you don't mind me saying so. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 11:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This has already created media coverage, so when people turn to an online encyclopaedia, they expect to find more facts. Therefore, I still oppose the deletion of this article. I also agree with Dismas views. Are1981 (talk) 11:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have now read WP:MUSIC, and this article clearly passes criteria. Are1981 (talk) 13:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Are1981 - To aid the discussion, will you please explain how it satisfies WP:MUSIC? WP:MUSIC is for bands, albums, artists, and songs. It's not for tours. The album, band, every song, and every member of the band being notable does not make a tour inherently notable. OlYeller^Talktome 15:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - with a slightly heavy heart, since I'm a massive Floyd fan. Three of the references are not reliable sources, and another three are probably self-published. That leaves only Billboard, and I do not consider a single source to be "significant third-party coverage". The tour may be notable once its on, or finished, but as yet its just a few words and press releases. Parrot of Doom 14:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Looks like WP:CRYSTAL. References are either unreliable and/or fail to sufficiently verify the information in the article. OlYeller^Talktome 15:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - @User:Parrot of Doom/User:OlYeller21: How is Roger Waters' own website unreliable? How is two of the band members' own websites unreliable? And there are more media coverage, but I din't think Wikipedia had to have links to every article. Are1981 (talk) 16:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that his website isn't verifiable, I said that the information in this article is unverifiable. His website mentions a tour but verifies none of the information in the article. Is another website used as a reference one of his? Which references are owned by his band members? Can you prove that because I see no indication of that claim (they look like fan sites). Besides that, simply stating your opinions of the notability of the article doesn't help in this discussion. Please include Wikipedia policies and/or guidelines so that your opinions hold water. OlYeller^Talktome 17:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article based on nothing more than a press release, and I don't normally consider self-published sources (such as artists' websites) to be reliable sources. They're good for the odd soundbite, but not much else. Parrot of Doom 17:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - For those who say that WP:MUSIC doesn't cover tours, it does. See the section named "Concert tours". Granted, it doesn't list itemized criteria but it does state what is and what is not notable. Second, for those who say that the article doesn't have any reliable third party coverage, check the USA Today article that I added as a ref. I didn't have a lot of time this morning, so I just added the one source but there must be more third party coverage. USA Today can't be the only paper writing about this. Dismas|^(talk) 19:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Even if MUSIC doesn't apply, the GNG still does, and there's enough sources there that discuss the tour in detail to support an article. Umbralcorax (talk) 03:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Roger Waters is notable. The Wall is notable. Roger Waters touring The Wall is notable. One of the biggest selling albums ever, being played in full across the globe is notable. A quick search found this and this as extra third party sources. I'll add them into the article in a moment. Lugnuts (talk) 06:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with every part of this comment. This comment by Lugnuts should close this discussion. Are1981 (talk) 08:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I got here from the link in the Roger Waters article, while looking just for that. At the moment there is not so much information about this tour, nevertheless, there will certainly be, as we get closer to the tour dates. It has enough third party references and it will certainly make it in to an encyclopedic article, taking in to account the notability of Roger Waters, this album and his tours, of which this will probably be the last one. Ilarrain (talk) 23:58, 17 April 2010 (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.