Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Badflower

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, but I'm happy to userfy upon request. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:33, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Badflower[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Band whose article makes no substantive claim to passing WP:NMUSIC, and is sourced entirely to primary and unreliable sources like the band's own website, its own sales profiles on CDBaby and iTunes, a high school student newspaper and the website of another band they toured with. There's not even one appropriately reliable source in here, making it technically a speedy candidate — but it's somehow survived in that state for almost two years, so I thought AFD the better route. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:55, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 23:02, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the top Google news result is this article, published less than a week ago. On its own this is far from substantial coverage, but makes me wonder whether other sources are available.TheBlueCanoe 14:53, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL - no sources in the article can legitimately contribute towards notability, but sources here and here suggest the band are going to be releasing more material which may attract interest in the future. If and when that happens, they can have an article then. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:12, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft space - It is kind of weird, because this band certainly wasn't notable two years ago when the article was created, but all of the sudden they are on the verge of notability. The two sources offered by Ritchie plus this review by Music Connection could arguably meet a technical reading of the GNG... I would like this placed in draft space so I can check up on the band in a few months and see if their EP did anything. (I'll never remember it without the draft to remind me.) If not, the article won't be edited and will be deleted in 6 months, and in the mean time in will not be indexed by search engines, so no harm done. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:24, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:49, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:03, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No coverage to suggest Significance or notability. what coverage there is either a primary, unreliable, or if it is secondary it's at best WP:MILL and WP:ROUTINE in a digital world every band will have some coverage. but the existence of a shred of coverage is not "Significant" notability guidelines rise with the times. 10 years from now we will demand more evidence than we do today. but today Badflower misses the notability mark of encyclopedic importance. Bryce Carmony (talk) 17:41, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.