Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danny Boy Styles


 * 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. Based on the discussion here, the coverage of this bio is limited to brief mentions with no detail on the individual and his biography. Thus WP:SIGCOV does not appear to be met. Also, please don't SHOUT. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:31, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Danny Boy Styles

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

It does not meet WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO nor WP:MUSICBIO, lacks references. DBrown SPS (talk) 18:29, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It DOES meet WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO nor WP:MUSICBIO. What are you talking about? Everything is referenced, and the references are Reliable as referenced here from WP:MUSICBIO. Billboard is as "Reliable" as there can be. Please delete this request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiggamafu (talk • contribs) 18:28, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 22:17, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 22:17, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 22:53, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * DO NOT DELETE. UNLESS YOU CAN STATE IN DETAIL what your argument is, don't delete. EVERY piece of information is sourced and reliable. Have you never heard of BILLBOARD MAGAZINE?! This is ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiggamafu (talk • contribs) 01:20, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Billboard is reliable but the citations to it do not provide in-depth coverage of the article subject. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 16:29, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * To what specific citation are you speaking of? Please read the articles and you will see they provide sufficient information regarding the topic of discussion. Please also feel free to add to it and do your research if it needs a little more in depth coverage to meet your criteria. However, it does not warrant a deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiggamafu (talk • contribs) 18:59, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * All three Billboard citations. Two do not mention the article subject and one says that he was a producer-songwriter. That is not significant coverage. It did my research before commenting in this discussion. It isn't a little more in depth coverage to meet your criteria; there isn't any in-depth coverage. That means that it fails our notability requirements (WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO), which is a reason for deletion (WP:DEL8). —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 20:32, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Here are the Billboard article citations in question:1. The Song hit No.1 on the Billboard Hot 100.[3] It clearly states in the article that ""Hot" was The Billboard Hot 100's fastest-growing track at radio for three straight weeks earlier this month, propelling to where it currently sits at No. 1 for a second week." 2. Beauty Behind the Madness charted at the #1 spot on the U.S. Billboard Top 200 Album list for 3 consecutive weeks.[5] - This was just referenced correctly the right Billboard article. Can we close this now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiggamafu (talk • contribs) 21:05, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not disputing the accuracy of the Billboard citations or that they support information in the article; however, they do not have significant coverage of the article subject (Danny Boy Styles). —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 22:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Once again you provide absolutely no clarification to your dispute. The articles mentioned above do have "significant coverage of the article subject". All you have to do is read the article. I even stated the exact lines in the article that support the fact. This shouldn't be a topic of discussion if I provided the exact reference to the article subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiggamafu (talk • contribs) 20:02, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No, they don't. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 00:59, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * This is useless. I have stated my point with more than expected clarity and language. "No, they don't" is not a valid argument. Please close this discussion down and remove deletion message from page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiggamafu (talk • contribs) 01:03, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You need to learn what significant coverage is. "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail.... Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention.... —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 03:26, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:11, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: Jiggamafu, you are missing the point. You say that the references "provide sufficient information regarding the topic of discussion". The topic of discussion is Danny Boy Styles – however the first Billboard reference and the Forbes reference do not mention him at all, so no, they don't provide any information whatsoever regarding the topic of discussion. And the Gigwise and second Billboard reference are passing mentions in articles that focus on entirely different topics. That is what JJMC89 is getting at. All those references you mention simply provide notability for the MIMS and Weeknd records, not for Styles himself – the fact those records reached number one does not necessarily make Styles notable: see WP:INHERITED. Richard3120 (talk) 04:36, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Richard3120 - Thank you for clarifying something I've been asking for weeks now. The topic of discussion as you mentioned is Danny Boy Styles. 1. However, the first "Billboard" reference ONLY references: The Song hit No.1 on the Billboard Hot 100. It's just a supporting reference to the song that Danny Boy Styles had produced as his first major release. Yes, it does not mention Danny Boy Styles, but I only referenced it to support "The Song hit No.1 on the Billboard Hot 100". I can remove that if that's the issue? "2. In 2013 Danny Boy Styles worked on Kiss Land, the debut album by The Weeknd, producing all 10 tracks."  - If you click the Kiss Land link, it will show that Danny Boy Styles in fact did produce all 10 tracks. Should I reference something else? The facts are there, if its a technical issue, let me know and I'll reference something else?  "3. Beauty Behind the Madness charted at the #1 spot on the U.S. Billboard Top 200 Album list for 3 consecutive weeks" - Yes, this is from Forbes and does not mention Danny Boy Styles.  However, its extremely crucial to highlight the success of the album that the main producer of the album was apart of. I've seen this on multiple artist pages. I'm not sure if you're familiar with the music industry but this is an accolade for an artist such as Danny Boy Styles. Regardless, these referencing issues can be resolved WITHOUT deletion of the entire page, which is the topic of discussion here.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiggamafu (talk • contribs) 14:42, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The point isn't that those sources aren't permitted. There is nothing wrong with those sources as far as supporting facts. The point is that significant coverage of Styles is required to establish notability. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 19:50, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Give me an example? You keep saying significant coverage, and it has nothing to do with the sources now...? WHAT DO YOU REQUIRE besides wasting time? Give me a direct answer so I can provide what you're looking for. This is the problem with Wikipedia. If you're going to spend 2 weeks arguing with me over what significant coverage is, why not just DO THE RESEARCH AND ADD TO IT. If its a specific line in question, discuss that. This article for deletion is about the entire page and that is completely uncalled for. This is incredibly counter productive. How about you just add to the page and be useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiggamafu (talk • contribs) 22:49, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Significant coverage ("Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail.... Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention....) is required. I did the research before I first commented here, and such coverage does not exist; thus, the article should be deleted. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 23:44, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Significant coverage has been established here and no original research needs to be completed. We're talking about a single line that states an album he produced ranked X on a billboard chart...with billboard referenced. Common sense would be appreciated here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiggamafu (talk • contribs) 16:50, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It most certainly has not. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 18:02, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per DEL8 as lacking notability. Despite the shouting above, the sources given in the article and those I found with the find sources links don't add up to significant coverage in reliable, independent sources as required for GNG. I see no indication that any of the additional, specific BIO or MUSICBIO criteria apply in this case either. Rebb  ing  12:14, 8 September 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.