Deletion of Diamonds World Tour

Comment: As an additional policy citation I should have used but was unaware of at the time, see  , which indicates that tours must be notable on their own, reliable independent sources are still necessary in terms of their coverage, and those reliable independent sources must do more than establish existence).  Financial success, artistic approach, etc., are legitimate guidelines for notability, but none of that can be established before the tour happens.  Not all tours by a notable artist are notable
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NTOUR||WP:NCONCERT)

Comment: MSJ, I think you mean , which this does not pass, in my opinion. I also have serious concerns about the sources provided which include fan-sites and blogs. If you want to argue this should not be subject to  because the '''predictions''' are notable enough (predictions / plans / concepts can be notable) then we need far better sources than that as far as I'm concerned. The  votes from fans citing each other rather than policies are not particularly convincing in my opinion
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCONCERT||WP:CRYSTAL||WP:ILIKEIT)

Comment: Relevance is not even a consideration here, because relevance is subjective;  I'm sure Barry Manilow could care less about Rihanna's tour, for example.  What is at issue is sourcing.  The event has not happened, and CRYSTAL states "no dates are definite until the event has happened."  There is no coverage about it per RS; RS means "not from Rihanna's website," and "not advertising materials."  The tour also has to be notable on its own, as |notability is not inherited from its album.  So could someone please explain to me how something that hasn't happened yet meets WP criteria for notability
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTINHERITED)

Comment: Sorry? The tour is actually happening in March, how is that a ? Dates are announced from her website and is of support of ''Unapologetic'' which is out atm
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: because the article is not being thought of |through a crystal ball. The article has well-written and cited information, so I don't see why it is up for speedy deletion! All we have to do is add an expansion template to the article and get everyone to help out the article by providing more sources and information! If the article was being |thought out of by researching information, posting it on the article, and not adding sources, then it would be would've been listed as a |crystal article or even being plagiarized! This article should be kept for sure!   The
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL||WP:CRYSTAL||WP:CRYSTAL)