Contents

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warped Tour 2004 (2nd nomination)

Warped Tour 2004[edit]

Warped Tour 2004 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Almost sickeningly unencyclopedic. Some of these articles don’t even have introductions, they’re just huge lists of bands and show dates. The tour itself is very notable, but each year of the tour is not.

Warped Tour 2005 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Warped Tour 2006 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Warped Tour 2007 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Warped Tour 2008 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 21:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per nom. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 21:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all of the above articles. Agree with nom. --Belinrahs (talk) 22:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all - duplicative of List of Warped Tour lineups by year. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all. If you tried to put all of that info on one page it would make an article that was entirely too large. I find some of the language used here a bit disheartening. Are you actually getting "sick" over the layout of an article page? Seems a bit much if you ask me and like someone is taking this WAY too seriously. Instead of deleting everything when there is information, why not fix the layout then instead of just removing it entirely? DX927 (talk) 22:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all. A reasonable breakout per WP:Summary style. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• But how are giant lists of bands encyclopedic or necessary? Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 22:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Because they show which bands played in a specific year? DX927 (talk) 00:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• But there isn't any context, it's just a list of bands. Besides, that information all exists already at List of Warped Tour lineups by year, which was created by consensus after the last AFD nominations for all of these articles. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 01:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmm, I missed that list. I'm not crazy about how it's organized, though. I think for example Ozzfest lineups by year is better at capturing who was on what tour and level of importance, compared to either the list here or the separate breakout articles here. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I wasn't either, so I went ahead and re-did it. I like the way Ozzfest did it, but due to the large amounts of bands on Warped Tour, that just wasn't feasible. Instead, I put it in a table, and I think it looks alright. (Gotta love MS Word's "find and replace" feature. Saved me a LOT of time in putting this into table format.) Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 03:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Do any of you even realize how large the one article would be if just one year's worth of bands was added to it? DX927 (talk) 05:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Apparently, not too long, as I've already fit ALL of the bands into just one article. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 05:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Not even close to "ALL" of the bands are listed on that page DX927 (talk) 16:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge AlltoList of Warped Tour lineups by year. There is nothing that really distinguishes the tour in one year from another that would give that year's instance notability beyond that for the overall tour concept. This is similar to the situation with organisations where individual chapters or sub-units of an organisation of a notable organisation are not notable unless they have some form of independent notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep somewhere A list of performing bands is a perfectly acceptable split-out article, per Wasted Time R. This sort of thing is very easy to reference, and an introductory paragraph shouldn't be beyond our abilities. Barring length concerns, I think these ought to be merged into one list. See as paradigm List of Lollapalooza lineups by year. 14:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
• Keep all, each year of the tour IS notable. List of Warped Tour lineups by year is an interesting article, but a little hard to read. That list is useful for seeing which years a particular band has been on the Warped Tour. But quick, from that list tell me which bands were on the 2008 Warped Tour. I suppose a prose list could be created like List of Lollapalooza lineups by year, but the tours are different in that Lollapalooza occurs in one location, for no more than 3 days each year. The Warped Tour typically spans two months, with different bands each date. Information besides band names, dates, and locations would be a welcome addition to the articles — for example, attendance figures, gate revenue, reviews, press coverage, tiny sections on the compilation albums (and not just a link to them below in Template:Warped Tour), etc — but I think they're okay as is. Having articles on each year of the tour is just as acceptable as having articles for years of the Toronto International Film Festival. --Pixelface (talk) 15:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, you can. Click the little arrow box next to the year you want to view and it will automatically re-sort to show you all the bands on the tour in a single year. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 15:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, so what are they? Did you have to type it up or could you select them with your cursor and copy and paste? I did notice the arrow box next to each year, and I know what it's intended for, but it's certainly not working on my end. --Pixelface (talk) 23:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, it looks like you have to click it twice to get them to the top. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 00:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep, layout isn't a topic of deletion. Even though layout is an issue, deleting a few hundred hours work without discussing notability...? try {{wikify or {{cleanup 89.204.240.36 (talk) 04:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.