Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burning Up 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   SPEEDILY DELETED as a G4 recreation, previously deleted here. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Burning Up Tour

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Recreated article of a previous AfD, non-notable tour. Rwiggum (Talk /Contrib ) 16:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.   — Cliff smith  talk  17:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * DELETE, the article only has tour dates and set lists which has no importance. The tour can be summerized in 1 paragraph in the bands main page. Rebelderbd (talk) 18:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * STRONG Keep Non-notable tour?  This is a tour involving a band that is one of the hottest out there right now, in terms of street buzz and in ticket sales.  The article isn't the greatest, at the moment, but the tour is notable... thus the article is worthy, albeit definitely needing cleanup.  Winger84 (talk) 21:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment If you read Wikipedia's deletion guidelines, you'd know that notability is not inherited. Yes the band is a huge deal right now, that's why I'm not nominating The Jonas Brothers for deletion. Rather, the tour on it's own does not prove that it is notable per WP:MUSIC, and more specifically, WP:OUTCOMES.


 * Keep, massively popular tour, plenty of press coverage to demonstrate notability. Everyking (talk) 07:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, nominator must be oblivious to pop culture. -- Phoenix 2 17:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment You must be oblivious to my first post. I never said that the group wasn't notable, but the tour itself isn't notable. A tour has to be notble outside of the fact that the band it's related to is notable, and this one isn't. Rwiggum  (Talk /Contrib ) 17:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Under what conditions would the tour be independently notable, in your opinion? There are ample press sources focusing on the tour&mdash;do you feel something more is necessary? Everyking (talk) 19:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * For example, take a look at the page for the Soul2Soul II Tour. While it does contain a setlist and tour dates, the majority of the article is content about the tour and events on the tour, including references from notable sources that do more than just confirm the existence of the tour. The problem with the Burning Up tour is that the only actual content is describing what is happening during the tour. Plus, since the tour hasn't happened, there's no way of determining just how notable it will be, it's a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Rwiggum  (Talk /Contrib ) 19:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This comment makes no sense. There are sources all about the tour, not merely "confirming its existence"&mdash;during the last DRV for this article I linked to Google News showing hundreds of articles about it, including interviews, reviews of individual shows, and discussions of its popularity and demographic appeal. You are also saying it hasn't happened yet, but it started over a month ago. Everyking (talk) 19:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think I'm doing a very good job of explaining. (No really, I don't mean to sound snarky, I'm not explaining this very well.) Essentially, something is not notable simply because it is related to something else that IS notable. In this case, a Jonas Brothers tour is not notable simply because the Jonas Brothers are notable. There is precident in cases like this, including the Change for Change Tour, the Love on the Inside Tour, and most notably, This tour itself. Yes, this tour has been nominated for deletion once before, and the nomination passed, until someone recreated the article. That's why I initially put it up for speedy until someone declined it. Frankly, there just isn't anything particularly notable about this tour. It is a by-the-book musical tour. It hasn't broken any records, nothing unusual happened during the tour, etc. Yes, there are a lot of interviews and articles promoting the tour, but that's true about pretty much every tour ever. By your logic, nearly every tour a band goes on should have an article. I hope I've explained this well, let me know if you have any more questions.  Rwiggum  (Talk /Contrib ) 19:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not arguing that the tour inherits notability from the Jonas Brothers; I'm arguing that the tour is notable in its own right. Something does not need to have exceptional, remarkable attributes to be notable; it is sufficient that it has received substantial attention. Everyking (talk) 20:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I know what you're saying, but I just don't think that in this case it is. It's a very standard tour of which little more can be written. I don't see this article progressing past the point where it's at now. Rwiggum  (Talk /Contrib ) 20:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Rwiggum  (Talk /Contrib ) 20:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge to A Little Bit Longer omitting tour dates, ect. I do think that the tour is notable, but it really doesn't require its own article because it really isn't going to get much bigger than a paragraph unless you add in unnotable details. Tavix (talk) 00:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * STRONG KEEP NOT NOTABLE? Almost all the shows on this tour is sold out in MINUTES! Some even broke records, being sold out within 3 minutes! Still not notable? The tour is going to be a 3D movie in February, 2008. I think a MOVIE is notable enough to have an article, let alone a 3D movie on a tour by Jonas Brothers, Platinum selling artists in multiply countries, including the US, Mexico, and Argentina! ♥, calliegal_x (talk) 04:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)Calliegal
 * Keep per WP:JNN (i.e. not explaining why and how it is not notable, just declaring it isn't is subjective and we have to be convinced that it isn't) not being a valid deletion rationale and because notability is inherited. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 16:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Unfortunately, no, notability is NOT inherited. Please read WP:NOTINHERITED for more information on this concept. Sorry, but the article's been deleted before, and nothing has changed since the last nomination. Rwiggum  (Talk /<sub style="color:black;">Contrib ) 17:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have never found that "argument" that it isn't persuasive. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 18:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean. It is persuasive for sure, but it is false logic. A subject must be able to stand alone in terms of notability for it to actually be notable. You can't just create articles on anything related to a notable subject and expect it to exist because the two are related. You have to provide reason why the subject itself is notable. Currently, you're just arguing that the Jonas Brothers are notable, not the tour. Plus, I am of the opinion that a great deal of the tour articles on Wikipedia are not notable, this included.  Rwiggum  (<sup style="color:black;">Talk /<sub style="color:black;">Contrib ) 19:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * A paperless encyclopedia, as long as the content is verifiable, can afford to have spinoff and sub-articles. Tours are fairly notable subjects, they're reviewed, many people go to them, etc.  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 19:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete: I'm going to to go with WP:NOT, specifically other terrible ideas. This isn't quite an indiscriminate collection of information, but it's damn close. Wikipedia isn't a directory of any kind, and certainly isn't a collection of tour guides. There's really nothing to say about this tour except a listing of the dates they played in various cities, and there is no reason at all to expect that information to be located in an encylopedia.Kww (talk) 03:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The press articles about the tour found more to say than just the tour dates. I'm sure we can do likewise. Everyking (talk) 04:14, 17 August 2008 (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.