- 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. Yunshui 雲 水 07:38, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Droeloe ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Did not chart; never released any significant albums. A majority of the sources used on this article relate to the group's work and not about the group itself, but are also mostly music blogs without any indication from the site's about section regarding the credibility of their editors. Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. There is also a huge suspicion regarding WP:SPA and WP:COI. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 03:29, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 03:29, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 03:29, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - non-notable as proven by the lack of commercial success and respected sources talking about them. ×°˜`°× ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 07:47, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. I agree with the previous statements. Also, this article blatantly violates
WP:NPOV by continuously praising Droeloe by phrases such as "signature skill," "emphasis on music," "weave intricate stories," and "a new force to be reckoned with."
AnUnnamedUser
(open talk page)
16:42, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- I wanted to comment that you said "signature skill"; I believe you were referring to "signature skull", which isn't as bad, but your point still stands about it violating a neutral point of view regardless. Just a misreading, EOC. Utopes ( talk) 21:34, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- Keep as does have reliable sources coverage such as Billboard and AllMusic here which usually indicates that there should be more coverage offline if not online. Also, they have released on two notable record labels. Problems with peacockery in the prose can be edited out , regards Atlantic306 ( talk) 18:27, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Although the (non-)existence of other articles is not to be used in deletion discussions, it's worth noting that none of their singles have Wikipedia articles. From
AnUnnamedUser
(open talk page)
21:27, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- If it should not be used, then why is it worth noting? gidonb ( talk) 20:29, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- The reason for the non-existence of articles is unclear. Maybe it's because there's no interest. Maybe it's because there are no sources. Maybe it's because Droeloe isn't notable in the first place. From AnUnnamedUser (open talk page) 21:20, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- The absence of such articles is meaningless hence the recommendation not to mention it. gidonb ( talk) 22:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Although the (non-)existence of other articles is not to be used in deletion discussions, it's worth noting that none of their singles have Wikipedia articles. From
AnUnnamedUser
(open talk page)
21:27, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:NEXIST and WP:GNG. The amount of sources in music publications is sufficient. Before expressing my opinion, I have largely cleaned up the article. Will continue to do so. While we disagree, kudos to the nominator who clearly expressed an opinion, did include the projects, and now gives everyone space to freely make up their minds. Plus he improved the article name before nominating the article. Very good and honest! gidonb ( talk) 02:19, 18 August 2019 (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.
- 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. Yunshui 雲 水 07:38, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Droeloe ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Did not chart; never released any significant albums. A majority of the sources used on this article relate to the group's work and not about the group itself, but are also mostly music blogs without any indication from the site's about section regarding the credibility of their editors. Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. There is also a huge suspicion regarding WP:SPA and WP:COI. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 03:29, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 03:29, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 03:29, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - non-notable as proven by the lack of commercial success and respected sources talking about them. ×°˜`°× ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 07:47, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. I agree with the previous statements. Also, this article blatantly violates
WP:NPOV by continuously praising Droeloe by phrases such as "signature skill," "emphasis on music," "weave intricate stories," and "a new force to be reckoned with."
AnUnnamedUser
(open talk page)
16:42, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- I wanted to comment that you said "signature skill"; I believe you were referring to "signature skull", which isn't as bad, but your point still stands about it violating a neutral point of view regardless. Just a misreading, EOC. Utopes ( talk) 21:34, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- Keep as does have reliable sources coverage such as Billboard and AllMusic here which usually indicates that there should be more coverage offline if not online. Also, they have released on two notable record labels. Problems with peacockery in the prose can be edited out , regards Atlantic306 ( talk) 18:27, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Although the (non-)existence of other articles is not to be used in deletion discussions, it's worth noting that none of their singles have Wikipedia articles. From
AnUnnamedUser
(open talk page)
21:27, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- If it should not be used, then why is it worth noting? gidonb ( talk) 20:29, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- The reason for the non-existence of articles is unclear. Maybe it's because there's no interest. Maybe it's because there are no sources. Maybe it's because Droeloe isn't notable in the first place. From AnUnnamedUser (open talk page) 21:20, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- The absence of such articles is meaningless hence the recommendation not to mention it. gidonb ( talk) 22:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Although the (non-)existence of other articles is not to be used in deletion discussions, it's worth noting that none of their singles have Wikipedia articles. From
AnUnnamedUser
(open talk page)
21:27, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:NEXIST and WP:GNG. The amount of sources in music publications is sufficient. Before expressing my opinion, I have largely cleaned up the article. Will continue to do so. While we disagree, kudos to the nominator who clearly expressed an opinion, did include the projects, and now gives everyone space to freely make up their minds. Plus he improved the article name before nominating the article. Very good and honest! gidonb ( talk) 02:19, 18 August 2019 (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.