Talk:Phoenix (Rita Ora album)

The background timeline

What is the point of listing singles, with their chart positions, from 2014 and 2015 when none of those songs have nothing to do with this current project? The starting point of this particular album should be the Roc Nation lawsuit (from December 2015). The complaint also touches on the issue that Ora had created multiple albums for release, but was not able to release them because she was constrained by her former record label. So, it partially covers those singles as well.

Also, the mention about Harris supposedly pulling songs they worked on is tabloid-y. It originated in the tabloids, such as The Sun and later repeated in the Daily Mail. Even the writer of the article on the Official Charts website uses the term "reportedly" because he's unsure of it.--Helptottt (talk) 15:42, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hence I wrote, "it was reported that" which covers the essence what you're saying. Rather than reverting and then starting the conversation you really should have left the content then started a discussion after I added it back. The purpose of talking about those singles like "I Will Never Let You Down", "Poison" and "Body on Me" is that they were all originally intended to be part of this project. The production for what would become Ora's second album began way before 2015. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 17:31, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those songs were a part of other intended projects and Ora's official complaint covers it as well. By signing to another record label, it became a completely different project. I don't disagree with your inclusion of most of the information you gathered, but it's a push to mention songs from 2014/5. --Helptottt (talk) 17:37, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to disagree with that. Perhaps I went into too much detail with major chart placements. Signing to a different label doesn't always mean that the songs your previously recorded aren't yours. The same thing happened with Jennifer Lopez and her album Love?, though to be fair the many of the songs she recorded previously did end up featuring on the album. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 19:10, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, those songs probably aren't hers. It's very likely that Roc Nation owns the master recordings of everything she recorded under their label. More importantly, none of those songs will appear on the album. This excerpt covers those released singles as well: The complaint stated that she's "only been permitted to release one album despite creating multiple additional records for release". Who knows how many albums she has previously recorded? That's why the complaint is important to cite and not the 3 or 4 released singles (from 2014/5). --Helptottt (talk) 20:13, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Phoenix World Tour

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was against the merger proposal with four opposing votes and two votes in favour. Helptottt (talk) 21:34, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NTOUR, a list of tour dates alone isn't sufficient to make a tour notable for its own article. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 20:06, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. It seems sufficiently notable, it's Ora's biggest tour to date and I've referenced everything. It doesn't only provide a "list of tour dates", it offers enough background information, too. When the tour starts in 2019, a setlist, the opening acts and the tour reviews will be added. Similar tours by British artists, such as Always In Between Tour and LM5 The Tour exist independently without being merged with the album. --Helptottt (talk) 20:58, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a suitable argument. WP:NTOUR clearly says independent coverage beyond the existence of the tour makes a tour notable. A list of dates alone is not notable. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 12:50, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also @Helptottt: reviews and other stuff being added in the FUTURE is a huge assumption that notable sources will cover the tour. Future speculated coverage is not a suitable criterion for current/present day notability. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 00:23, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I agree with everything Helptottt has said Theog101 (talk) 11:38, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Per Lil-unique1's arguments. livelikemusic talk! 23:11, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. There is enough coverage out there to make a separate article for Ora's world tour, whether Helptottt or other editors have found it or not. Having a table for dates included on the album page is extraneous information not directly related to its recording, production or reception and hence why I removed it several days ago. Ss112 20:33, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree - what's the point in having a policy which was voted in my readers only for it be ignored? If you're so confident that there is additional information, please feel free to add it. In its current form it does not meet the notability for concert tour pages. The guideline explicitly says information beyond its existence. At the moment the references list dates and mention that it is the first arena tour - this is not notable. I merged into the album article as it was the next most obvious place for the information. It is not extraneous info and could have been collapsed to hide it for those who aren't interested in it. 00:23, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

We're not voting on my oppose !vote, so you don't need to highlight that you disagree with me. As has been pointed out in previous deletion and merge discussions, it is not the responsibility of a user pointing out that sources exist for a topic to then go add them. It is not up to me if I don't have an interest in adding it; I'm simply observing they are out there. We can't ask or force editors who contribute an opinion or point out facts to go defend an article if they don't want to. It is my opinion that a bunch of tour dates, collapsed or not, is simply extraneous information to merge here. You don't have to argue with every objection. If the article cannot exist on its own, then they should be left out of this article. Ss112 11:52, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Per the arguments of Ss112. Gemsweater1 Talk:Gemsweater1 20:11, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The nominator is correct on WP:NTOUR and I could point out WP:EXIST as well. Sources about the tour are indeed from reliable sources in the music journalism world, but I can find nothing beyond basic announcements of the tour's existence. Per WP:NTOUR a tour needs coverage as a phenomenon in its own right, not just as a list of announced shows. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:21, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Wouldn't this fall under WP:TOOSOON? Why not just save this as a draft until closer to the tour's starting date? Aoba47 (talk) 01:24, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.