Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danny Boy Styles: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 01:03, 2 September 2016

Danny Boy Styles

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

It does not meet WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO nor WP:MUSICBIO, lacks references. DBrown SPS (talk) 18:29, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:17, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:17, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:53, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
- Billboard is reliable but the citations to it do not provide in-depth coverage of the article subject. — JJMC89 (T·C) 16:29, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - 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)[reply]
    - 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). — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:32, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - 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)[reply]
        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). — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        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)[reply]
        No, they don't. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:59, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:11, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

@@ Line 19: / Line 19: @@
 <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"><span style="color: #FF6600;">'''{{resize|91%|[[Wikipedia:Deletion process#Relisting discussions|Relisted]] to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}'''</span><br />
 <small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, <span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;">[[User:Northamerica1000|North America]]<sup>[[User talk:Northamerica1000|<font size="-2">1000</font>]]</sup></span> 10:11, 31 August 2016 (UTC)</small><!-- from Template:Relist --><noinclude>[[Category:Relisted AfD debates|Danny Boy Styles]]</noinclude></div><!-- Please add new comments below this line -->
+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.