Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Works 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 No consensus, defaulting to keep  Jclemens (talk) 06:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The Works Tour

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

Non-notable tour. Article consists only of a setlist and list of dates. Fails WP:NOTINHERITED Rwiggum  (Talk /Contrib ) 14:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  19:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Tour generated substantial press coverage at the time, and should be able to meet the general notability guideline with ease if one looks in a suitable place (i.e., contemporary newspapers and music magazines). JulesH (talk) 20:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you please provide some of that coverage? And to be notable, the tour must be notable on its OWN, completely regardless of what band it was for, because notability cannot be inherited from another subject. The subject of the article must be notable in its own right, and nothing seems to suggest that here. Rwiggum  (Talk /Contrib ) 21:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, a non-notable tour that fails to satisfy the general notability guideline with significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. Just an indiscriminate collection of fancruft.   Esradekan Gibb    "Talk" 00:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: trivial coverage, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 02:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: nothing inherently notable about this tour, a list of dates without explanation or rationale. A-Kartoffel (talk) 03:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The tour was reviewed in The Times (review reproduced here), and there is behind-the-scenes coverage about the tour in the book Freddie Mercury: An intimate memoir by the man who knew him best. And until you've gone through every contemporary issue of Billboard (magazine), Rolling Stone, NME, and every city newspaper from the venues in which they performed and can tell me that they didn't say anything significantly about this tour, I don't believe for a second that what User:JulesH says is not true. Thanks to FUTON bias, you shouldn't expect to find the text of such publications from 1984 in a Google search. DHowell (talk) 21:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - dozens of RS, should be enough non-trivial coverage. -- Avant-garde a clue - hexa Chord 2  21:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 16:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Lets use some common sense shall we, it's obviously a huge tour by one of the biggest bands in rock/pop history. It's obviously notable - it might benefit from some more editorial input, but so would every single article on WP. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 20:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Notability is not inherited. It doesn't matter if it's a tour by the biggest band in the world or the band I was in in high school, the tour must stand on its own as notable, not have to rely on some exterior source. Rwiggum  (Talk /Contrib ) 22:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking we should ignore the rules for this, I'm fairly sure there's a ton of references out there, this will probably turn into a clean-up issue rather than a delete. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 00:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ignoring rules? The guidelines should apply to all articles, not the ones people like. Chief Wiggum is right on this. JamesBurns (talk) 02:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:IAR is a guideline that says if it helps the encyclopedia to ignore the rules then thats what we should do. I reckon this is a notable tour, its something that people will search for, and it will get expanded over time, so ignoring the rules is the way to go with this article. I'm concerned about what does make a tour notable if this one isn't - I appreciate that it's going to need references and a clean-up so it meets manual of style guidelines, but we do already have the Times review that DHowell found and I think the subject is encyclopedic. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 03:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: All of the other Queen tours up for deletion have now been kept, and I have no reason to believe this tour is any less notable than the other ones. Note, however, that this tour did not go to North America, so the reliable sources are going to be mostly non-American. While American reliable sources from the 1970s and 1980s are difficult enough to find online, non-American reliable sources from this era are nearly non-existent on the Internet. DHowell (talk) 06:43, 13 April 2009 (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.