Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bougenvilla


 * 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. The only explicit keep argument is not giving any reason why the article is supposed to meet notability criteria. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:43, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Bougenvilla

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Was recently discussed at AfD. Sources in the article seem to be more of list-type information rather than reviews or the like. Can't find other sources. Hobit (talk) 22:53, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:00, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:00, 10 October 2016 (UTC)


 * delete no evidence of WP:NMUSIC, no good sourcing - David Gerard (talk) 10:38, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: It looks like that I could use help with improving this article and making it more notable, because it still could not pass WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Could you guys help out please? Thank you. - XPanettaa (talk) 13:07, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * XPanettaa, it is (usually) inappropriate to ping people to deletion discussions. It could be considered WP:CANVASSing. Alsee (talk) 16:49, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Can be, but requests for help are a good thing if the intent is to get help, not get votes. As nom, if this can be improved, I'd be thrilled.  I only nominated because I don't think it can.  Hobit (talk) 18:50, 10 October 2016 (UTC)


 *  Delete OR redirect -, WP:CANVASS. Truth be told, even I cannot find any good sources for this musician.  Redirect with history to Spinnin%27_Records. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:53, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. This article was previously nominated for speedy deletion but an anonymous editor removed the template without explanation. Since then, a claim of notability has appeared in the article, so while it no longer qualifies for speedy deletion, it still doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:33, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - This article should stay because it can beasily be updated. Infopage100 (talk) 01:24, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 *  Reply -, WP:BURDEN. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:57, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's a pretty bogus reason to keep. All articles on Wikipedia "can easily be updated." That isn't a criterion for inclusion of a topic. So far, nobody has explained what criteria in WP:MUSICBIO are met by the subject of this article. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:42, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Reply - Ok yeah, it's pretty bogus. But why do we have to delete everything??? By the way, I meant to say, "easily" not "(b)easily." I was pretty tired. Infopage100 (talk) 16:40, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 *  Reply -, please SIGN your posts, and see WP:DEL-REASON. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:17, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Reply -, SORRY that I forgot to sign a comment. Still though, I hate deleting everything. I know why pages get put up on Wikipedia's deleting craiglist; I just wish they wouldn't. It was more like a cry, not a question Infopage100 (talk) 16:42, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * We delete things because it's the policy to do so, and policies such as Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of information have evolved and agreed upon by community consensus, and guidelines such as WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO help us adhere to those policies. If you want to change any policies or guidelines on Wikipedia, you can start forming a consensus to change them, but deletion discussion isn't the venue for that. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:12, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The short answer is that "spammers mean we can't have nice things". I too find it infuriating re: music articles, and yet preferable to the alternative - David Gerard (talk) 17:35, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment -, I'll try to see if I can sqeeze in some time to contribute to this page. Sorry for taking so long. :/ Infopage100 (talk) 01:24, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Out of 24 footnotes in the article, more than half of them are to their songs' sales pages on iTunes — which is not a reliable source that can carry notability in a Wikipedia article — and none of the remaining nine are any better, being entirely to blogs and WP:ROUTINE concert listings and more primary sources like SoundCloud. This is not the kind of sourcing it takes to get a musical group into Wikipedia. Deletion does not mean that a band can never have an article, because an article can be recreated again if and when somebody can do better on substance and sourcing than the first time — but no, we don't keep articles just because they might eventually be improvable. We have an extremely high rate of people who try to misuse Wikipedia as a public relations venue, and that can't be tolerated or accepted — if the article doesn't already meet our inclusion and sourcing standards now, it can't stay. Bearcat (talk) 04:59, 16 October 2016 (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.