Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Van Halen Winter 2008 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 Delete. Those supporting deletion have their argument firmly planted in a guideline; those supporting retention offer only arguments from outside recognized policy and guidelines. Xoloz (talk) 15:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Van Halen Winter 2008 Tour

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This tour hasn't happened yet, and although I am not crying "crystalballery", I contend that concert tours in general are not encyclopedic topics, unless they are like Marylin Manson's Dead to the World tour where religious kooks protested endlessly, and a date had to be cancelled in South Carolina. (Of course, that article doesn't mention it, I had to look it up on Marilyn Manson). Anyway, Wikipedia is not the place for Van Halen's upcoming tour information to be posted. I'm sure there are policies that could be cited against this sort of listing, and if there are not, there should be. Also, WP:NOT, non-notable, unsourced, the usual. AnteaterZot (talk) 08:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per Crystal balling & Directory. I wouldn't use Dead to the World tour as an example though since it's been prodded too. :) Cheers, Spawn Man Review Me! 09:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, Madonna's Confessions Tour is another example of a tour that deserves an article. AnteaterZot (talk) 09:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There are many examples of tours that deserve and have articles — The Rolling Stones American Tour 1972, Bob Dylan's Rolling Thunder Revue, U2's Zoo TV Tour, Bruce Springsteen with The Seeger Sessions Band Tour, the Dixie Chicks' Accidents & Accusations Tour, David Bowie's A Reality Tour, and so on. As for policy, why should every album and every single by a musical artist have its own article, and not tours?  Many artists have established their reputation or livelihood more on touring than on record sales; indeed, in recent years Springsteen and the Rolling Stones make far more on their new tours than they do on their new records.  Why shouldn't this be captured here?  Do you object to Phish tours, and if so, do you think articles about albums really accurately portray the appeal of that band?  Wasted Time R (talk) 13:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't object in the least to notable tours like the ones you have mentioned. My concern is the proliferation of tour pages where fans (or possibly even bands) use Wikipedia as a listing service (WP:NOT). Most of the tour pages are just a list of dates and venues, with no explanation of why the tour is notable, or is/was important to the history of rock. AnteaterZot (talk) 22:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - per Spawn Man's comments Manning (talk) 12:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:NOT, WP:NOT, WP:NOT. We don't have articles on all band tours anyway... only a few of the most notable ones, and this isn't one of them - I know that even though this hasn't happened yet.-h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 14:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect into Van Halen Fall 2007 Tour. This is just another leg of that tour, as will be Van Halen World Tour 2008 if it happens.  I don't know why the editor who created these made them separate; it's all the one long Van Halen reunion tour with David Lee Roth finally back but with Eddie Van Halen's son replacing Michael Anthony.  This entire merged article should be kept; it is notable and deserving of an article, because the reunion with Roth has been two decade in the making, with several failed attempts before.  The joined article needs to be improved, however, with a better level of citing and sourcing, incorporation of newspaper reviews, a better description of what the set lists have been, commentary of Roth's voice, Eddie Van Halen's playing compared to his last pre-rehab tour, whether his son is up to the task, etc.  Wasted Time R (talk) 15:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not crystal balling, tour dates have been confirmed. They are legally contracted to play this tour. The last KISS, Aerosmith, Rolling Stones, Iron Maiden, and Metallica tours all had pages up well before they began.
 * Keep Speaking of the VH World Tour 2008, that needs deleting. This tour is a separate one, since it cannot be part of a "Fall 2007" tour so I really think it has to be kept.

Van Halen's first work with David Lee Roth since 1984 is very important, and this is the second part of their reunion tour-work.

Van Halen have said there are more tourdates in 2008, but not said it is a continuation of the same tour. (The Elfoid (talk) 19:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC))


 * These are not really separate, common sense should prevail here. These are different legs of the same grand Roth-is-back tour. Call the combined article Van Halen 2007-2008 Roth Reunion Tour, or something along those lines.  The fewer tour articles you have, the more substance each one will have and the less likely they will to get deleted.  Trust me on this one.  Wasted Time R (talk) 02:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I concur. If I had seen two outside sources on the page I would have left it alone. Consolidated articles have more sourcing possibilities.AnteaterZot (talk) 03:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Tour dates "being set" isn't good enough to counter WP:NOT#CRYSTAL; the White Stripes cancelled their most recent tour because Meg had health problems. In fact, tours do get cancelled, and individual gigs are changed or cancelled with surprising regularity. AnteaterZot (talk) 22:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: I would agree they are different legs of a grand Roth-is-back tour as you so eloquently put it. But officially the 2007 dates were part of the Van Halen Fall 2007 Tour. So Van Halen's management are calling it a different event. A tour can get cancelled, but there's got to be good reason - it is unlikely. I wouldn't call crystal-balling an issue here; we state a tour is schedule to happen, nothing more. And it's true.

I think what's best is to keep them apart for now, to avoid the effort deciding how to handle the fact that a 2007 tour lasts 4 months into 2007, and consider it again once the second dates begin. Since I imagine the band will either say "The reunion tour continues with 2008 dates starting now" OR "The Van Halen 2008 Tour begins"...something along those lines. An official statement is a matter of weeks away and can decide this itself. (The Elfoid (talk) 19:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC))


 * Elfoid, you're getting confused over the branding that artists' management do for different portions of a tour, and the common sense that we use in writing articles about a tour. U2 called their 1992-1993 tour Zoo TV, Zoo TV Outside Broadcast, Zooropa, and Zoomerang, but we cover all of them under Zoo TV Tour.  The Rolling Stones rebranded the Steel Wheels Tour as the Urban Jungle Tour halfway through, but we combine coverage as Steel Wheels/Urban Jungle Tour.  And so on.  Wasted Time R (talk) 19:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Mmmm, perhaps. I'll admit while I don't think a merge is necessary and we should keep it apart, I am not overly bothered by it. The tours you mentioned were rebranding tours for different legs of a promotion. These tours are not really promoting anything, just Dave-is-back. It feels wrong, somehow. Fine, go ahead, merge it. I don't know...I think more than the merge, I'm against this being called the "Van Halen Tour 2007/2008" since it's split up. "Van Halen Fall 2007/Winter 2008 Tour" is probably too clunky for anyone else but me to be able to stand though.

So then, lets do it, I guess. (The Elfoid (talk) 13:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC))

One further note; on the Concert Tours page, lets list this in the same fashion the 1984/OU812 tours have been for consistency. (The Elfoid (talk) 13:29, 12 December 2007 (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.