Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Droom (band)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 no consensus. Arkyan 22:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Droom (band)
College radio charts aren't reliable sources, nore are club charts. No other assertation of notability whatsoever. If not for the two thin references I might have put it up for A7. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 16:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 20:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 20:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 22:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. I originally declined speedy deletion because a brief search suggested the band may meet WP:MUSIC. I also added the two sources that are in the article. I can't say I care that much or want to work on the article anymore, but it seems to me that the band probably meets WP:MUSIC criteria 1 and 5. It looks like a valid stub to me that meets WP:V and WP:N. Why not let the Wiki process play out and hopefully someone interested in synthpop will eventually come along and make a decent article out of it?--Kubigula (talk) 22:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete The article has little notability. It also needs to be cleaned up.--LAAFan 22:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. I have added four more references. It's enough for WP:N or WP:MUSIC criterion #1. Besides, they meet criterion #5 with their releases on the record label A Different Drum. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 23:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jonny-mt 03:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete An unlikly research topic, little content. Prom3th3an (talk) 03:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- "Unlikely research topic"—is that an argument of WP:NOTINTERESTING? Also, the fact that the article currently is fairly short is not an insurmountable problem; more content can be added from the sources noted. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 04:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:N. Google Test returns 4 relevant results; one being the article itself, one being one of the listed sources, one being an Amazon review and other being a remote reference on a synthpop fansite. ~ Ameliorate U T @ 11:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- I'm not sure from your comment if you did not notice the references the article currently has, or if you believe they are insufficient. (If it's the latter, might I inquire as to why you believe that?) There are two album reviews from The Province, two from Exclaim!, and one article about the band's tour from the San Antonio Express-News. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 15:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. I'll also add the the "Google test" is somewhat discredited as a method of measuring notability. However, even if it were valid, Droom gets waaay more than four relevant hits. Take another look at the result - there are at least four relevant hits on the first page alone.--Kubigula (talk) 16:15, 30 May 2008 (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.
