Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Bloom (Gigolo Aunts song)

This process is too complicated for the casual contributor to participate in. Without substantial reading, it's not even clear where the appropriate place to make comments would be. Here's the challenge for those who wish to make casual contributions. Wikipedia only appears to value online references. If I'm holding the actual recorded media in my hands and transcribing that information into the article, that information itself provides the reference to the original source. This isn't basic research; it's merely equivalent to an old school literature search.

Regarding notability, this is probably the single most frustrating topic for music lovers who want to leverage Wikipedia. First of all, from the music lover's perspective, charting is a horrendous criteria for notability. As a user, I'm looking for a compendium of relevant information about an artist, to include history and discography. Obviously, I want the information to be correct, but I also want it to be complete. My frustration with trying to contribute to making that happen is that, as an author, I feel that once I do the legwork to provide the type of completeness that I would want to see, I'm subjected to a never-ending barrage of proposals to delete the work I took the time to compile. It's frustrating and demotivating. I get removing/correcting/enhancing incorrect/incomplete/out of date information. I get removing someone's article about their pet turtle. I get removing information that exhibits bias or agenda. I just don't get the zeal with which Wikipedia seeks to remove information based upon popularity or trendiness.

Thanks for taking the time to let me know that this article is up for deletion, and for taking the time to understand why so many potential authors decide to opt out of your process.