Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/...Baby One More Time Tour (2nd 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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 01:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...Baby One More Time Tour

Just a tour, isn't really much more than a setlist and list of tour dates. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 03:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment On first sight it seems neither better nor worse than other 'xxx Tour' articles - both for this and other artists - (and to be honest, there's not much else you can write about a concert tour unless it turns into a Spinal Tap-esque fiasco, is there). It is unsourced (but again that's hardly exceptional for tour articles it seems). MadScot (talk) 03:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - But just because other stuff exists does not mean it should stay. Likewise, just becuase it is a tour article doesn't mean that it's okay for it to be unsourced. I think that you're getting to the heart of the problem with most tour articles, and to that point I agree with you very much. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 03:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with MadScot, there isn't much to write about a tour unless something Spinal Tap-esque happens. Which is why it is so hard to find any WP:RS to establish any sort of notability. Article fails to meet WP:GNG. I'm voting for delete rather than redirect because I feel the article name is a non-plausible search term. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is about an obviously verified concert tour. The Tour was notable as the first tour of a obviously notable singer. No offence... but your Delete argument sounds more like WP:IDONTLIKEIT.--Pmedema (talk) 18:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiable is not the same thing as notable. Likewise, your argument that the artist is notable doesn't apply, since notability is not inherited. The tour ITSELF has to be notable, not just the artist on the tour. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 18:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it was notable as "Spears' first solo national tour", Sponsored by Tommy Hilfiger and the performed songs were from her "debut album". --Pmedema (talk) 19:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But the reasons your giving are all other notable things that don't inherently make this tour notable. The fact that it is her first tour is not inherently notable. By that logic, just about any notable artist's first tour would be notable, which they are not. Likewise, the fact that it was in support of her first album, as the notability of that album cannot be transferred to this tour. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 20:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 19:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to a lack of non-trivial coverage by reliable third party sources. Sites like "britneyspears.org" and press releases are obviously not such. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 21:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are news sources that mention this tour (quite a few actually). And there had to have been reviews of this. Seriously. Maybe paper-only, but there is no way this didn't get reviews in local papers. Hobit (talk) 01:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - But the question is non-trivial coverage. There's no question that it was written about, but generally reviews are considered trivial. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 01:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No? Reviews are great sources for things like this. Not sure how an article in a newspaper on a topic can be trivial coverage of that topic. Hobit (talk) 12:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. This was a major tour by a major popular artist. Spears's tours, including this one, have been key to the development of her image at different stages of her career. Yes, the article needs to be improved, to describe more of the artistic aspects of the show, and the commercial results of the tour, and reviews that the show got. But it is definitely notable and AfD is not a suitable venue for it. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you support your arguments by citing reliable, independent third party sources which provide non-trivial coverage of this tour? coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 18:06, 23 October 2008 (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.