Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controversy of the Born This Way Ball

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. The assertion that the subject passes WP:GNG doesn't seem to have been refuted, and the sources in the article seem to corroborate that assertion. I'm not finding a strong enough consensus to merge to impose that fate here, but no prejudice against starting a merge discussion on the talk page of the article. -Scottywong | chat _ 16:35, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy of the Born This Way Ball

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete - An WP:INDISCRIMINATE passage of WP:TABLOID and/or WP:FANCRUFT faux-drama. Any relevant information should be detailed in Born This Way Ball. SplashScreen (talk) 02:17, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No need for an article. FarceFan (talk) 02:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Aspects (talk) 03:50, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the above is one of the user's first edits. Till 04:32, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just because I'm new (I've done anonymous edits over the years) does not give you a right to your arrogance. FarceFan (talk) 01:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then maybe you should provide a reason for deletion that is based on policy/guideline rather than saying 'no need' for the article, so the closing administrator takes your vote into account. Kthanksbye. Till 04:18, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Delete per nom. FarceFan (talk) 13:19, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please strike out your previous delete vote. Users are not permitted to vote more than once in an AfD discussion. Till 15:27, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't vote twice. I simply elaborated. Certainly the administrator -who is more intelligent than you- will figure that out. Geez. If something's a cunt hair off, you're all over it. FarceFan (talk) 19:13, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Expect to be blocked at this rate with those (poor) personal attacks. And you put delete in bold twice. Soz4life but can't do that. Till 04:09, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I'll just simply create a new name. Big whoop. Here's some advice for you. Click on stats. It mentions that I did say delete twice. All is well.FarceFan (talk) 17:13, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It clearly meets the WP:GNG, and there appears to be sufficient content that warrants a reasonably detailed article. Till 04:19, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Keep in some form. This has received a lot of press coverage and as Till says it meets WP:GNG. However if possible it should be in the main Born This Way Ball article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:06, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Inflates fringe criticisms into something more important or noteworthy than they are in undue proportions to the overall acclaim the tour and artist appears to have received. It has a paragraph at Born This Way Ball, which is more than sufficient. Tarc (talk) 14:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge part of it to Born This Way Ball --Artene50 (talk) 23:59, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the reason it was created in the first place. This content was on the Born This Way Ball article, and it contained too much relevant information. Criticism is a perfectly acceptable for an article. The notability is clearly there. She'd had to cancelled one of her concerts due to threats to her safety. The article passes WP:GNG and is most certainly not WP:FANCRUFT. Statυs (talk) 04:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep notable both due to impact on the artist and an indicator of the societal norms of the national governments who took positions on the tour. Deserves its own page as politicians discussing whether a person with cultural positions will be allowed to speak or enter the country is of a different level of interest than how many wardrobe changes or set lists were in the tour which are notable for the tour but don't involve assassination threats from an Indonesian group linked to terrorism. Deleting this page would seem to indicate that as these events took place outside of America they don't matter. --Wowaconia (talk) 06:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge: sufficiently covered in Born This Way Ball - the controversy is not separately notable. If this article contains any key content that isn't sufficiently covered there, it can be merged, but taking care to cut most of the bloat. --Slashme (talk) 00:51, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The two paragraphs on the Born This Way Ball page speak about reactons to her tweets and her song choices, they do not mention the assasination threats she received if she would step off the plane, the threats to cause harm to her, her dancers, and her crew by promises to burn the stage by groups with known links to terrorism. It does not explain why the police refused to take her side and uphold the law. Nor does it mention heads of state and other international leaders comments on the controversy.Wowaconia (talk) 17:50, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have added two sentences to the main article as there was no indication there to the extreme level the controversy had gone to and perhaps the reason this sub-article is being reviewed here is that editors think that it is merely an expansion of minor controversies within the act, rather than a clash of worldviews.Wowaconia (talk) 18:11, 8 July 2012 (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.