Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruise Violet (band)


 * 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:49, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Bruise Violet (band)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable band lacking non-trivial support. Fails WP:MUSIC. red dogsix (talk) 23:58, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as none of this suggests any better applicable notability. SwisterTwister   talk  00:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  00:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  00:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment. Some decent coverage found, but pretty local to the band:, , , . --Michig (talk) 06:46, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - after reviewing the references given by . Maharayamui (talk) 00:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 17:15, 7 April 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:18, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - FWIW, the apparent Keep votes themselves admit the coverage is only local thus still questionable and I'm sure they themselves would admit there could be better, of which is not currently available it seems so the article is, all in all, still questionable for actually keeping and meaningfully improving. SwisterTwister   talk  05:33, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Above coverage is local and not a sign of enduring notability. If there was even some indication of notability outside Minnesota (for a band that shouldn't be "limited" to Minnesota in its coverage), there wouldn't be an issue. As of now, there's a dearth of significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) czar  15:22, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - not enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources, including non-local sources, to show it passes WP:GNG.  Onel 5969  TT me 12:31, 24 April 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.