Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Frontier Touring Company


 * 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. KTC (talk) 20:44, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

The Frontier Touring Company

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Advertising. Declined AfC (by Anne Delong) that was move into article space after adding not the requested reliable sources but more advertising and promo. The Banner talk 11:21, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:52, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:52, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:52, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:52, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per this Duplication Detector report: . &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 13:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - Article has been significantly improved. *Delete - The article has some good information and it's obvious they promoted alot of well-known and notable people but that's basically what they touring companies do and are most likely notable for. Not as much notability on their own. Google News search found alot of results for their clients but not much in-depth about them aside from that they're big at what they do in their country and internationally. This briefly mentions that they're based in Melbourne and another brief mention a donation of theirs here. It's nice that they're the largest concert promoter in Australia and New Zealand. The "Oz Touring Awards Honor Sound Relief, Gudinski's Frontier" reference currently used in the article mentions an award but it doesn't seem to be much and it's brief. The list of clients ('80-'13) is nice and large but, in terms of verifying, it would be alot of work. I don't mean to be a bubble burster but, again, companies like tour promoters and record labels don't get that much attention about themselves and are more behind-the-scenes. SwisterTwister   talk  21:51, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep incredibly hard to google find dedicated articles that aren't just brief mentions, because there are so many brief mentions. However, now that I've removed the laundry list of every band they've ever brought to Australia, you can see that there are some refs, and I think enough to pass WP:GNG.  And the book on the company's 30 years, whilst it appears to be self-published (which when you consider the company is a promotions company, makes sense, why would they outsource it) is held in many major libraries in Australia. The-Pope (talk) 02:00, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep clearly a tricky issue where hair splitters might have a field day, but for an on-going major player in the Australian music industry, that is in itself an element of notability that some might not accept, but has to be acknowledged. Still needs some work on it regardless satusuro 02:14, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "for an on-going major player in the Australian music industry" do you have sources to back that claim? LibStar (talk) 02:35, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * read the article and the refs. Biggest or 2nd biggest promoter in the country over past 2 years and 16th biggest in the world this year, 50th biggest last year. The-Pope (talk) 11:07, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You call it hair splitting, I still call it advertising. The Banner talk 03:48, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Business that are in the promotions industry rarely do anything that isn't advertising. Still can be notable though. The-Pope (talk) 11:07, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * When they want to stop paid editing, they should start with disallowing promo-vehicles like this. But I have decided to use the axe to see if there was a notable company hidden under the blahblah, promo and unrelated events. And yes, it might be the case although I am not really convinced. Some events are still unsourced, making it difficult to judge the value. The Banner talk 21:36, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I just came across this. Too close paraphrasing or copyvio? Not realistic to start bickering about it now, but it proves the promo intent of the original author. The Banner talk</i> 12:17, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment since the original nomination by The Banner several editors, including myself have worked at improving the article and providing independent verifiable references to establish something we all knew - the articles notability. All I have seen since then is The Banner's repeated attempts to try and justify his original nomination even though the article had been significantly changed, even going so far as removing some of the additional references provided by the above editors. It is time this farce came to a conclusion. Dan arndt (talk) 14:11, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No need to hurry, mr. Arndt. Giving reliable sources without cleaning out advertising and promo is a useless exercise. You guys do your best, that is true, but you have yet failed to convince me at all points. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 14:33, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * luckily enough we don't need to convince you. However next time you delete swathes of an article make sure that you don't remove referenced factual information in your efforts.Dan arndt (talk) 15:17, 17 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - There a numerous independent verifiable references, including several books: The Promoters: Inside stories from the Australian Rock Industry by Stuart Coupe, Hey, You in the Black T-Shirt by Michael Chugg, and Rock Dogs: Politics and the Australian Music Industry by Marcus Breen which document the signficant impact the Frontier Touring Company has had on shaping the Australian musical scene. Dan arndt (talk) 05:31, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * although I do think Dan arndt would have found this AfD himself, I don't think notifying him to come here was necessary. . LibStar (talk) 00:25, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * the notification was entirely about how we could improve the article by finding better (non-first page of a google search) sources, which is not only entirely allowed and appropriate, but also should be the reason all of us should be editing. The-Pope (talk) 01:53, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * LibStar I think that it is apparent that I would have had a look at this AfD even if The Pope hadn't have brought it to my attention. Notwithstanding that it should be about improving articles not deleting them out of hand.Dan arndt (talk) 15:17, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

If we are to proceed, now each part of the reverted edit now needs to be examined, as to simply render an article almost meaningless from a pruning edit as was done, cannot be considered as a whole. To do otherwise is hijacking an afd where inadequates consideration of details removed by the nominator, now places the afd in a review option. satusuro 02:21, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - stupidly famous - David Gerard (talk) 12:54, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep – notability established by numerous recently added sources.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 20:07, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * comment - however now that the nominator has removed referenced sections of the article, I suspect that we are now into a very strange space where blahblah needs to be asertained as to whether we are dealing with the article as amended by the nominator, or before. Removing contextual information has rendered the possible discussion on this afd into another territory.  Surely the nominators edit requires further discussion now. satusuro 02:16, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment – I agree that removal of material, which provides context for the article's subject, is curious. Note that this includes removal of references supporting such material and adding to claim of notability. Those changes may adversely bias other editors' opinion in this AfD.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 23:39, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Interesting enough you caled my edot a bad faith edit just before re-adding stuff like "Frontier was behind Kylie Minogue’s record breaking 2001 On a Night Like This Tour which went on to sell out twenty dates across Australia's arena venues. Without doubt the tour launched Kylie to super stardom levels in Australia.", sorry, but this is plain promo. And this piece of clear promo 2004’s overwhelming success story of the year was The Eagles farewell tour with 15 concerts selling out across Australia, verifying the bands legendary status yet again and securing them the record of Australia's highest grossing indoor tour to date. or this piece: 2005 saw the sudden shock postponement of Kylie's 20 concert Australian Showgirl Tour after she was diagnosed with cancer. Determined to complete the tour, Kylie announced rescheduled dates for her revamped Showgirl Homecoming Tour just 12 months after her diagnosis, much to the delight of the tens of thousands of fans who had held onto tickets.  The relevance of those three pieces are absolutely zero but just prove that as many names as possible are mentioned to attract traffic. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 02:39, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Que? – Where did I call your edit a bad faith edit? Where did I re-add stuff to the article? Could you please substantiate your accusations about my editing? I disagreed with wholesale removal of material during an AfD and I disagreed with removal of references. I now find your attitude to be unduly confrontational and argumentative: I'm try to reach a consensus here not attack someone who disagrees with me with false claims.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:27, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * FYI – I have returned one of the refs previously deleted by the nominator, who then asked for a citation needed for a fact which the ref provides: Curiouser and curiouser!.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 05:30, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - if, and I emphasis if - this was a good faith nomination on its own merits, (1) they should start with disallowing promo-vehicles like this - would not have been made, as to infer that the subject is not a valid subject has not been made convincingly by the nominator (2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Frontier_Touring_Company&oldid=581825606  edit during the afd has the edit summary of clean out of blahblah, promo and unrelated events  show both bad faith in the Afd process, or otherewise misunderstanding of it.  Blah blah is not a policy guideline.  (3)  I have reverted the edit in AGF on the assumption that the removal shows little understanding of the subject in the first place.
 * Nice attack, but I have reverted your edit. Promo is just not allowed in an encyclopaedia. Please adhere to: What_Wikipedia_is_not. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 02:39, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable organisation - it's one of the biggest touring promoters in Australia, and as is now clear, appears in many independent secondary sources. Orderinchaos 02:28, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - If this article is kept, it will need to be carefully rewritten to be sure all the copyright violations have been removed. I believe that it is completely acceptable to make improvements to an article which has been nominated for deletion in the case where the topic is notable but the article has flaws (okay, many flaws). The closing admin doesn't just count the votes, but weighs the arguments, so if some of the earlier comments no longer apply, he or she will take that into account. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 02:36, 17 November 2013 (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.