Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/That Bass Tour (2nd nomination): Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 11:28, 22 April 2015 editWordSeventeen (talk | contribs)7,194 edits →That Bass Tour← Previous edit Latest revision as of 09:26, 19 October 2022 edit undoBruce1ee (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers269,879 editsm fixed lint errors – stripped tags 
(38 intermediate revisions by 14 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
<div class="boilerplate afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's ] or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.''
<!--Template:Afd top

Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links to create a new discussion page using the name format of ]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->

The result was '''no consensus'''. There is significant disagreement herein about whether or not this this topic meets ]. Of note is that the nominator states that as per WP:NTOUR, "reviews of individual performances don't add up to notability for a tour", but this is not stated at WP:NTOUR. WP:NTOUR does state that "...coverage might show notability in terms of artistic approach, financial success, relationship to audience, or other such terms. Sources which merely establish that a tour happened are not sufficient to demonstrate notability." There is disagreement in the discussion about the validity of various sources presented herein relative to WP:NTOUR, specifically, whether or not they meet the threshold of coverage beyond establishing that the concert tour occurred. There is also disagreement about whether or not reviews of the tour qualify as coverage beyond the notion of verifying that it occurred. Ultimately, there is no consensus for one particular action herein. A merge discussion can continue on a talk page, if desired. <span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;">]<sup>]</sup></span> 09:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
===]=== ===]===

{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|M}}
<div class="infobox" style="width:50%">AfDs for this article:<ul class="listify">{{Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/That Bass Tour}}</ul></div> <div class="infobox" style="width:50%">AfDs for this article:<ul class="listify">{{Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/That Bass Tour}}</ul></div>
:{{la|That Bass Tour}} – (<includeonly>]</includeonly><noinclude>]</noinclude>{{int:dot-separator}} <span class="plainlinks"></span>) :{{la|That Bass Tour}} – (<includeonly>]</includeonly><noinclude>]</noinclude>{{int:dot-separator}} <span class="plainlinks"></span>)
Line 20: Line 27:
::* For building an encyclopedia, it's most helpful to judge the article based on its current state and its potential for improvement instead of the creator's original reason for creating it. ] (]) 06:16, 22 April 2015 (UTC) ::* For building an encyclopedia, it's most helpful to judge the article based on its current state and its potential for improvement instead of the creator's original reason for creating it. ] (]) 06:16, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' or '''Merge'''. ] doesn't seem to say that concert reviews don't count for notability for a tour. Along with the sources in the article, with a Google search and Google News search I found , , , , , and . There seems to be substantial enough coverage of the tour. Maybe it could be squished into a section in her main article, but it also could be reasonably well-supported as an independent article. There is also likely to be more coverage as the tour continues. ] (]) 06:16, 22 April 2015 (UTC) *'''Keep''' or '''Merge'''. ] doesn't seem to say that concert reviews don't count for notability for a tour. Along with the sources in the article, with a Google search and Google News search I found , , , , , and . There seems to be substantial enough coverage of the tour. Maybe it could be squished into a section in her main article, but it also could be reasonably well-supported as an independent article. There is also likely to be more coverage as the tour continues. ] (]) 06:16, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
**The article in the Tennessean says ''nothing'' about the tour; it's a concert review (which proves, I suppose, that it happened). The article from the Daily Trojan (a student newspaper from South Carolina...) also says nothing whatsoever about the tour. The article from USA Today spends two sentences on the tour, mentioning basic factoids--that's not significant coverage. The article from the Telegraph does mention the word "tour", in a concert review, in the following sentence: "The last gig of Trainor’s first UK headline tour was a relentless assault on the senses." In other words, no discussion of the tour ''as a tour''. Calling the MTV note an article is overstating the case; in short, it says, Trainor will not wear a swimsuit. If that's significant discussion, you've set the bar really, really low. And the "ten things to know about the tour" from The Oregonian, that's silly factoids ''at best'', not discussion. Unless, of course, you call this significant discussion: "Still, there were plenty of adults guzzling beer at the bar upstairs, so don't feel awkward, grown-up Megatronz."<p>So, in conclusion, not a single one of these provide ''any'' kind of significant discussion about the tour. Feel free to compare this to the kind of sourcing (not the number of sources--the ''kind'' of sources, the depth of discussion) in ]. Hell, even ] is a thousand times more notable than this. ] (]) 15:21, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
***Information about concerts in a tour seems to be useful information for a tour article, since if I'm reading about a tour, I'd like to find out what the concerts were like, along with meta-information about the tour's finances and logistics. Information about the artistic approach of the concerts is useful for providing a sense of the artistic approach of the tour. I found a few more reviews that editors could use - the discusses her relationship to the audience, talks about the tour in the context of her career, is about a concert at a lesbian music festival which is somewhat different from her other venues, and talks about the outfits and aesthetics. I agree that this isn't the most notable of all tours, but it seems to meet a reasonable minimum of coverage. ] (]) 16:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
***(A side note, but the ] is a student newspaper in Southern California instead of South Carolina. It's reasonably reputable, with and , so it seems fine as a source for local uncontroversial information.) ] (]) 19:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
*'''Keep/merge''' I agree 100% with ] who has made all the points which I had established too. In particular: *'''Keep/merge''' I agree 100% with ] who has made all the points which I had established too. In particular:
:# ] does not say what the nomination claims :# ] does not say what the nomination claims
:# The reviews in the '''' and '''' demonstrate significant coverage of the sort which NTOUR is expecting, "''Such coverage might show notability in terms of artistic approach, financial success, relationship to audience, or other such terms.''" :# The reviews in the '''' and '''' demonstrate significant coverage of the sort which NTOUR is expecting, "''Such coverage might show notability in terms of artistic approach, financial success, relationship to audience, or other such terms.''"
:The main problem with focussing on the tour, per se, is that it mainly becomes a list of venues and dates which is contrary to ]. This issue will become clearer when the second tour starts, right after the first - see ''''. To make the most of the sources, which concentrate upon the content of the sets and the nature of the audience, it would be best to cover this topic at the main article about Trainor. That would be a merger and so deletion is not appropriate, per ]. ] (]) 06:44, 22 April 2015 (UTC) :The main problem with focussing on the tour, per se, is that it mainly becomes a list of venues and dates which is contrary to ]. This issue will become clearer when the second tour starts, right after the first - see ''''. To make the most of the sources, which concentrate upon the content of the sets and the nature of the audience, it would be best to cover this topic at the main article about Trainor. That would be a merger and so deletion is not appropriate, per ]. ] (]) 06:44, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
:*Are we reading in The Reporter? The only general thing it says about the tour is not a general thing about the tour: the follow-up to "And her tour didn't disappoint loyal fans" talks only about that one particular show. That is ''not'' what NTOUR is expecting. Set the bar higher, please. ] (]) 15:23, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
:#
*'''Speedy Keep''' - Substantial coverage on independent reliable sources. I am going to work on this article next month. However, notability is demonstrated enough. Tour is still continuing. We have fucking got an article for ] for months, it still has so much time to even begin. Simply, ] is one of the biggest tours right now. ] (] / ])</b> 07:50, 22 April 2015 (UTC) ::* The coverage is significant per ]. Drmies seems to be setting the bar at the level of a ] such as ] but that's not appropriate for a deletion discussion. My !vote stands. ] (]) 16:52, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
*'''Speedy Keep''' - Substantial coverage on independent reliable sources. I am going to work on this article next month. However, notability is demonstrated enough. Tour is still continuing. We have fucking got an article for ] for months, it still has so much time to even begin. Simply, ] is one of the biggest tours right now. ] (] / ]) 07:50, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
*'''Speedy Keep''' I agree with ] and also ]. The article subject has already received significant coverage in numerous ] including: , , , , , , , and . With this many sources and references available the article should be speedily kept and just expanded with the other sources that are openly available. I certainly also agree with ], this all seems to be a huge waste of time. What happened to ], and are some of the editors here having problems getting the google search engine to work? Just sayin... Cheers! ] (]) 11:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC) *'''Speedy Keep''' I agree with ] and also ]. The article subject has already received significant coverage in numerous ] including: , , , , , , , and . With this many sources and references available the article should be speedily kept and just expanded with the other sources that are openly available. I certainly also agree with ], this all seems to be a huge waste of time. What happened to ], and are some of the editors here having problems getting the google search engine to work? Just sayin... Cheers! ] (]) 11:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
**You two, with your calls for "]": you obviously haven't read the six points that may warrant asking for a speedy keep. Unless you want to call me a vandal or disruptor, of course. ] (]) 15:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' - Sources by prevalent, mainstream reliable sources like ] and ] are enough to show that this meets the ], let alone all of the other ones found. I also agree with the sentiment that the nomination misrepresents what ] says.
::* It does not say "''reviews of individual performances don't add up to notability for a tour''.
::* It only says "''Sources which merely establish that a tour happened are not sufficient ''" and "''A tour that meets notability standards does not make all tours associated with that artist notable.''", neither of which apply here. ] ] 12:47, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
:*For the hell of it, is WordSeventeen's USA Today review of a show in Portland, which spends all of two sentences on the tour: "Seventeen further North American dates, mostly sold-out, follow in the USA, culminating with an a concert in her adopted hometown of Nashville on March 20. Trainor then heads to Europe, Asia and Australia." That's not "significant coverage of the ''tour''. Serge, if you can't see that "coverage of a tour" is quite different from "coverage of a show", well... ] (]) 15:12, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
::*No, that's not how it works. As long as the show is part of the tour, then its coverage about the tour as well. Your argument is like saying a detailed album review wouldn't go towards the notability of a band because its only about the album, not the band. That's ridiculous, because the album creation process is a big part of the band history. Same thing here. The show was part of the tour, and that part of the tour was covered in great detail by a reliable source. As I and others already said, nothing in NTOURS supports that narrow line of thinking. ] ] 16:27, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
:::*Band-album is hardly like tour-show. No, coverage of a show is not necessarily coverage of a tour. Nothing in NTOUR supports ''your'' line of thinking, of course. ] (]) 17:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
::::*Unless an individual show is not part of a tour, to say coverage of a single show is not coverage of a tour is straight up, objectively wrong. It'd be different if NTOUR denoted some that sort of exception, but it definitely doesn't. ] ] 18:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
:::::*Sorry. Let me try that again. "Coverage of a show is not coverage of a tour". It's plain English, Sergecross--why you'd think that a show and a tour are the same thing is not clear to me. For starters (and I can't believe I have to explain this), coverage of a tour would talk about, oh, the set design, the rationale behind it, the marketing for the whole thing, the philosophy, the investors, the scheduling, the adjustments along the way, the costumes (more than mention of swimsuit) and the dance routines, the musicians, the arrangements, the sound engineering...need I go on? None of the references that supposedly discuss the tour discuss the tour, or any significant aspect of it. ] (]) 00:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
::::::* I'm not saying they're the same thing, I'm just saying that if the singular thing (a show) is part of a collective (a tour), the sources to one also apply to the collective as well. As for the rest of all that - you're setting the bar far too high here. We're not writing an FA here, we're seeing if something meets the bare minimum required for existence here. NTOURS doesn't require all those things, it merely lists them off as possible subject matter. There's undeniably reliable sources (MTV, NYT, etc) devoting entire articles to it. That's enough to meet ] Save the rest of your high standards comments for a FA review or something. ] ] 00:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
::*It's more constructive and helpful to ask something like "What is your reasoning for coverage of concerts being significant for coverage of a tour?" if you disagree with a point. ] (]) 16:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
:::*Why? I am pointing out, here and elsewhere, that in the sources that claim to say something about the tour, really nothing is said about the there. I understand y'all's argument, and I disagree, and I claim that it y'all's reviews of shows do not provide significant discussion of the tour. ] (]) 17:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
::::*I'm making a suggestion about civility and friendliness, that it's easier to discuss disagreements if people address each other's good-faith ideas with respectfully-phrased questions instead of "if you disagree with me, there's something wrong". ] (]) 18:06, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
:::::*Good thing I didn't say that, then. Thank you for your civility, ] (]) 21:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
::*We shouldn't have to name every tree to prevent the speedy deletion of a forest. ] (]) 17:34, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
:::*Another faulty analogy, if only because trees (well, their individual species, I suppose) are always already notable. Nor are individual trees "reviewed" in any comparable way. Sorry, I can't see the forest for the trees here. ] (]) 17:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. Fails ]. Sources are required to prove it's notable and not sources that merely say the tour or concerts in the tour took place. The sources provided are merely reviews. ] ]&#124;] 19:08, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
::Question: how do sources prove it's notable verses proving it took place? It seems the sources provided describe her audience (mostly female and lots of kids) and describe that she's very interactive with the audience etc. They describe Trainor's fashion choices, her dancing and singing and her stage presence which seems to be described as remarkable for someone so young. I'm really not clear on what would be needed to make this tour sufficiently notable.--] (]) 20:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
:::The ultimate standard is the ], which just says "multiple". So, technically 2, though usually 4-5 is usually what it takes to sway people into a "keep" !vote. ] ] 22:31, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the ]. <span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;">]<sup>]</sup></span> 19:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)</small>
:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the ]. <span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;">]<sup>]</sup></span> 19:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)</small>
*'''Keep'''. Meets ] with significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources (see and ). ] ] ] 23:27, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. Fails ], see also Drmies and Calidum's comments. <span style="border:1px solid #900;padding:2px;background:#fffff4">]&nbsp;]</span> 03:51, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
*'''Keep.''' The sources provided by Dreamyshade, WordSeventeen, Sergecross73 and Gobonobo seem sufficient for WP:NTOUR and WP:GNG. Merging could also be an option, but it doesn't seem ideal here considering recently main article was tagged as too long.--] (]) 13:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' Per ]; reviews of individual shows don't cut it. <b>] ]</b> 18:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' The article contains very little encyclopedic content. In looking at the sources available, it wouldn't suggest there is much more to be filled in other than dates and cities. What hasn't been brought up here is that ], namely a promotional directory. I find the content about tour in the sources very ] and nothing more than I would expect about any other ] event. It's important to note that ROUTINE coverage was not what the community decided qualified as multiple and independent sources for concert tours and hence why there was an emphasis on in-depth coverage. There needs to be a greater demonstration from the keep camp that these "multiple and independent sources" are not routine and have significant in-depth coverage. In some of these cases, they're simply reviews of the concert. I think anyone familiar with entertainment would know that the local media reviews just about any ticketed event from small community productions to broadway tours coming into town. ]] 18:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' This nomination should NOT have occurred. I would suggest a thorough clean up to improve the article. From my research, this artist appears to have a summer tour, ''The MTrain Tour'' approaching, which is receiving significant media coverage. I suggest a merging of the two until distant differentiations between the tours can be establish. Furthermore, no editor who wishes to delete this article has provided any strong evidence so support his/her opinion and reads as nit picky rather than a debate. No two journalist are the same thus not all media coverage will be the same. 15 million hits on a basic Google search and over 500k on a Google News search strongly point to significant media coverage.] (]) 06:13, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's ] or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>

Latest revision as of 09:26, 19 October 2022

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. There is significant disagreement herein about whether or not this this topic meets WP:NTOUR. Of note is that the nominator states that as per WP:NTOUR, "reviews of individual performances don't add up to notability for a tour", but this is not stated at WP:NTOUR. WP:NTOUR does state that "...coverage might show notability in terms of artistic approach, financial success, relationship to audience, or other such terms. Sources which merely establish that a tour happened are not sufficient to demonstrate notability." There is disagreement in the discussion about the validity of various sources presented herein relative to WP:NTOUR, specifically, whether or not they meet the threshold of coverage beyond establishing that the concert tour occurred. There is also disagreement about whether or not reviews of the tour qualify as coverage beyond the notion of verifying that it occurred. Ultimately, there is no consensus for one particular action herein. A merge discussion can continue on a talk page, if desired. North America 09:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

That Bass Tour

AfDs for this article:
That Bass 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)

WP:NTOUR requires that a tour be covered in-depth by reliable, secondary sources, and states that reviews of individual performances don't add up to notability for a tour. In this case, we have no such coverage--the most reliable article to mention the tour is this, which is nothing in terms of providing actual discussion--it's just an announcement. Or, delete as non-notable. Drmies (talk) 03:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. A look online shows little more than reviews for the tour (which doesn't count toward notability as stated above) and unreliable sources mentioning the tour and/or tour dates. None of this equates the in-depth coverage needed for this article to survive. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment & question I don't have time to do an in depth search, but a few seconds of searching located this additional reference from the Oregonian on "That Bass Tour". . I can't help but notice this is the second deletion request for this article & that Trainer articles seem to pop on noticeboards a lot, so my question is: why are Meghan Trainor articles controversial? --BoboMeowCat (talk) 03:48, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
"Controversial"? Where's the controversy, BoboMeowCat? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:51, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
I've noticed Megan Trainer seems to be a topic that inspires a lot of drama. Such as ANI's regarding battleground and nit-picky seeming RfC's regarding whether to call her a "singer-songwriter" or "singer/songwriter" etc. . I don't get all the fuss. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 03:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Off-topic, but..."nit-picky"? Wanting an encyclopedia to be concise and provide correct information for readers -- I don't find that nit-picky at all. Indeed, I find it to be responsible stewardship. Sometimes I think Misplaced Pages editors forget that this encyclopedia is supposed to be about providing accurate online information for readers, not enjoyment, entertainment, and feelings of victory for editors. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:04, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
BoboMeowCat, it seems that with this edit at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force you are trying to create drama yourself by implying this AfD is some sort of anti-female bias? Please tell me I'm wrong... -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:24, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
You are mistaken. WP:GGTF is set up to improve articles related to women. If the concern in not enough in-depth coverage, interested editors from that task force might be able to help. Also, the additional source I just located indicated Trainer and this tour are quite popular with 11 year old girls. I would suspect that due to systemic bias resulting from our editor population, topics of interest to tween girls might not be adequately represented on WP, so if this article could be improved, that might be beneficial in terms of WP covering more topics outside the interest base of the bulk of our editors, so this deletion request is on topic for that task force. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 04:35, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I hadn't seen the first one; thanks, I'll have a look. The reference you gave is better than what was there in the article, but it's hardly in-depth discussion of the tour as a whole. As for depth--well, "A good portion of Bob Marley's "Legend" played before Trainor and her band took the stage. Bob Marley is definitely all about that bass." That's 1/10th of it--there's no depth there. Drmies (talk) 03:56, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, whaddayaknow, that first AfD was mine too. It ended in "delete"! Drmies (talk) 03:57, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • The result in the first case was because the tour hadn't happened yet. The tour is now running and is generating adequate coverage. This demonstrates that the first nomination was a waste of everyone's time, like this one. Andrew D. (talk) 06:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • For building an encyclopedia, it's most helpful to judge the article based on its current state and its potential for improvement instead of the creator's original reason for creating it. Dreamyshade (talk) 06:16, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge. WP:NTOUR doesn't seem to say that concert reviews don't count for notability for a tour. Along with the sources in the article, with a Google search and Google News search I found commentary about the tour from Oregon Live, a review in The Tennessean, a review in The Daily Trojan, a review in The Telegraph, a review in USA Today, and a short article from MTV about outfits for the tour. There seems to be substantial enough coverage of the tour. Maybe it could be squished into a section in her main article, but it also could be reasonably well-supported as an independent article. There is also likely to be more coverage as the tour continues. Dreamyshade (talk) 06:16, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
    • The article in the Tennessean says nothing about the tour; it's a concert review (which proves, I suppose, that it happened). The article from the Daily Trojan (a student newspaper from South Carolina...) also says nothing whatsoever about the tour. The article from USA Today spends two sentences on the tour, mentioning basic factoids--that's not significant coverage. The article from the Telegraph does mention the word "tour", in a concert review, in the following sentence: "The last gig of Trainor’s first UK headline tour was a relentless assault on the senses." In other words, no discussion of the tour as a tour. Calling the MTV note an article is overstating the case; in short, it says, Trainor will not wear a swimsuit. If that's significant discussion, you've set the bar really, really low. And the "ten things to know about the tour" from The Oregonian, that's silly factoids at best, not discussion. Unless, of course, you call this significant discussion: "Still, there were plenty of adults guzzling beer at the bar upstairs, so don't feel awkward, grown-up Megatronz."

      So, in conclusion, not a single one of these provide any kind of significant discussion about the tour. Feel free to compare this to the kind of sourcing (not the number of sources--the kind of sources, the depth of discussion) in Zoo TV Tour. Hell, even The Great Escape Tour is a thousand times more notable than this. Drmies (talk) 15:21, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

      • Information about concerts in a tour seems to be useful information for a tour article, since if I'm reading about a tour, I'd like to find out what the concerts were like, along with meta-information about the tour's finances and logistics. Information about the artistic approach of the concerts is useful for providing a sense of the artistic approach of the tour. I found a few more reviews that editors could use - the London Evening Standard discusses her relationship to the audience, Yahoo News UK talks about the tour in the context of her career, The Desert Sun is about a concert at a lesbian music festival which is somewhat different from her other venues, and The Independent talks about the outfits and aesthetics. I agree that this isn't the most notable of all tours, but it seems to meet a reasonable minimum of coverage. Dreamyshade (talk) 16:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
      • (A side note, but the Daily Trojan is a student newspaper in Southern California instead of South Carolina. It's reasonably reputable, with awards in 2013 and 2015, so it seems fine as a source for local uncontroversial information.) Dreamyshade (talk) 19:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep/merge I agree 100% with Dreamyshade who has made all the points which I had established too. In particular:
  1. WP:NTOUR does not say what the nomination claims
  2. The reviews in the Telegraph and Reporter demonstrate significant coverage of the sort which NTOUR is expecting, "Such coverage might show notability in terms of artistic approach, financial success, relationship to audience, or other such terms."
The main problem with focussing on the tour, per se, is that it mainly becomes a list of venues and dates which is contrary to WP:NOTDIR. This issue will become clearer when the second tour starts, right after the first - see Will Meghan Trainor’s MTrain Tour Pull Into Your Hometown?. To make the most of the sources, which concentrate upon the content of the sets and the nature of the audience, it would be best to cover this topic at the main article about Trainor. That would be a merger and so deletion is not appropriate, per WP:ATD. Andrew D. (talk) 06:44, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Are we reading the same review in The Reporter? The only general thing it says about the tour is not a general thing about the tour: the follow-up to "And her tour didn't disappoint loyal fans" talks only about that one particular show. That is not what NTOUR is expecting. Set the bar higher, please. Drmies (talk) 15:23, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • It does not say "reviews of individual performances don't add up to notability for a tour.
  • It only says "Sources which merely establish that a tour happened are not sufficient " and "A tour that meets notability standards does not make all tours associated with that artist notable.", neither of which apply here. Sergecross73 msg me 12:47, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • For the hell of it, here is WordSeventeen's USA Today review of a show in Portland, which spends all of two sentences on the tour: "Seventeen further North American dates, mostly sold-out, follow in the USA, culminating with an a concert in her adopted hometown of Nashville on March 20. Trainor then heads to Europe, Asia and Australia." That's not "significant coverage of the tour. Serge, if you can't see that "coverage of a tour" is quite different from "coverage of a show", well... Drmies (talk) 15:12, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • No, that's not how it works. As long as the show is part of the tour, then its coverage about the tour as well. Your argument is like saying a detailed album review wouldn't go towards the notability of a band because its only about the album, not the band. That's ridiculous, because the album creation process is a big part of the band history. Same thing here. The show was part of the tour, and that part of the tour was covered in great detail by a reliable source. As I and others already said, nothing in NTOURS supports that narrow line of thinking. Sergecross73 msg me 16:27, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Band-album is hardly like tour-show. No, coverage of a show is not necessarily coverage of a tour. Nothing in NTOUR supports your line of thinking, of course. Drmies (talk) 17:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Unless an individual show is not part of a tour, to say coverage of a single show is not coverage of a tour is straight up, objectively wrong. It'd be different if NTOUR denoted some that sort of exception, but it definitely doesn't. Sergecross73 msg me 18:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Sorry. Let me try that again. "Coverage of a show is not coverage of a tour". It's plain English, Sergecross--why you'd think that a show and a tour are the same thing is not clear to me. For starters (and I can't believe I have to explain this), coverage of a tour would talk about, oh, the set design, the rationale behind it, the marketing for the whole thing, the philosophy, the investors, the scheduling, the adjustments along the way, the costumes (more than mention of swimsuit) and the dance routines, the musicians, the arrangements, the sound engineering...need I go on? None of the references that supposedly discuss the tour discuss the tour, or any significant aspect of it. Drmies (talk) 00:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not saying they're the same thing, I'm just saying that if the singular thing (a show) is part of a collective (a tour), the sources to one also apply to the collective as well. As for the rest of all that - you're setting the bar far too high here. We're not writing an FA here, we're seeing if something meets the bare minimum required for existence here. NTOURS doesn't require all those things, it merely lists them off as possible subject matter. There's undeniably reliable sources (MTV, NYT, etc) devoting entire articles to it. That's enough to meet notability requirements. Save the rest of your high standards comments for a FA review or something. Sergecross73 msg me 00:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • It's more constructive and helpful to ask something like "What is your reasoning for coverage of concerts being significant for coverage of a tour?" if you disagree with a point. Dreamyshade (talk) 16:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Why? I am pointing out, here and elsewhere, that in the sources that claim to say something about the tour, really nothing is said about the there. I understand y'all's argument, and I disagree, and I claim that it y'all's reviews of shows do not provide significant discussion of the tour. Drmies (talk) 17:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm making a suggestion about civility and friendliness, that it's easier to discuss disagreements if people address each other's good-faith ideas with respectfully-phrased questions instead of "if you disagree with me, there's something wrong". Dreamyshade (talk) 18:06, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Another faulty analogy, if only because trees (well, their individual species, I suppose) are always already notable. Nor are individual trees "reviewed" in any comparable way. Sorry, I can't see the forest for the trees here. Drmies (talk) 17:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails WP:NTOUR. Sources are required to prove it's notable and not sources that merely say the tour or concerts in the tour took place. The sources provided are merely reviews. Calidum T|C 19:08, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Question: how do sources prove it's notable verses proving it took place? It seems the sources provided describe her audience (mostly female and lots of kids) and describe that she's very interactive with the audience etc. They describe Trainor's fashion choices, her dancing and singing and her stage presence which seems to be described as remarkable for someone so young. I'm really not clear on what would be needed to make this tour sufficiently notable.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 20:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
The ultimate standard is the WP:GNG, which just says "multiple". So, technically 2, though usually 4-5 is usually what it takes to sway people into a "keep" !vote. Sergecross73 msg me 22:31, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America 19:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America 19:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. Meets WP:NTOUR with significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources (see Boston Herald and The Telegraph). gobonobo 23:27, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails WP:NTOUR, see also Drmies and Calidum's comments. GregJackP Boomer! 03:51, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. The sources provided by Dreamyshade, WordSeventeen, Sergecross73 and Gobonobo seem sufficient for WP:NTOUR and WP:GNG. Merging could also be an option, but it doesn't seem ideal here considering recently main article was tagged as too long.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 13:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Per NTOUR; reviews of individual shows don't cut it. OhNoitsJamie 18:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete The article contains very little encyclopedic content. In looking at the sources available, it wouldn't suggest there is much more to be filled in other than dates and cities. What hasn't been brought up here is that WP:NOT, namely a promotional directory. I find the content about tour in the sources very run of the mill and nothing more than I would expect about any other WP:ROUTINE event. It's important to note that ROUTINE coverage was not what the community decided qualified as multiple and independent sources for concert tours and hence why there was an emphasis on in-depth coverage. There needs to be a greater demonstration from the keep camp that these "multiple and independent sources" are not routine and have significant in-depth coverage. In some of these cases, they're simply reviews of the concert. I think anyone familiar with entertainment would know that the local media reviews just about any ticketed event from small community productions to broadway tours coming into town. Mkdw 18:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep This nomination should NOT have occurred. I would suggest a thorough clean up to improve the article. From my research, this artist appears to have a summer tour, The MTrain Tour approaching, which is receiving significant media coverage. I suggest a merging of the two until distant differentiations between the tours can be establish. Furthermore, no editor who wishes to delete this article has provided any strong evidence so support his/her opinion and reads as nit picky rather than a debate. No two journalist are the same thus not all media coverage will be the same. 15 million hits on a basic Google search and over 500k on a Google News search strongly point to significant media coverage.Itsbydesign (talk) 06:13, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
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.
Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/That Bass Tour (2nd nomination): Difference between revisions Add topic