Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Styline

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. Sandstein 07:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Styline

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC/WP:BASIC with no reliable secondary sources, major labels or chart positions. McGeddon (talk) 12:43, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:04, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:04, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey McGeddon, I'm still working on finalizing the article and adding secondary sources. The artist did have multiple chart entries and major label deals. Will elaborate on that further now inside the article! — AleksandrMironov (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 12:48, 8 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Please do. I assumed when you removed the prod template that you felt you'd already addressed these problems. --McGeddon (talk) 13:08, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AleksandrMironov: Providing links to sources on this page would help people participating in this discussion to get a good handle on the subject. Specifically, I'd recommend looking at sources which would establish that Styline passes the criteria at WP:MUSBIO. If the charts you're talking about are major national charts, that would go a long way. I'd also recommend copyediting to make the language more neutral. Everything in the article should be verifiable in a reliable source independent of the artist (and labels, etc.). Language like "huge impact" is going to lead people to believe the article is promotional. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:11, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't appear to have charted anywhere in Europe, which would seem to be the main market for this music: I haven't checked North American or Asian charts yet. I'm wondering if the "multiple chart entries" are on Beatport or the iTunes chart. And I think I'd want some evidence that "power house" was a widely accepted genre in dance music circles and not just a neologism invented by Styline. Richard3120 (talk) 13:49, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"power electronics" is a genre, but it's a form of loud hideous noise industrial, not EDM. "pioneers his own music genre called Power House" is a bit of a red flag. Most Google hits on "styline" are for a kettle. "styline chart" shows Beatport charting (not convincing for NMUSIC) and an Instagram noting "Number one in the Russian club charts again!", and multiple national minor chart entries would pass NMUSIC if Clubtone qualifies - looks like nobody's worked it out for Wikipedia:Record charts. Can anyone here read Russian and also know if Clubtone would likely measure up as a respectable minor national chart? Of course then we still need RSes. I only found [1] in GNews, though Digital Journal is actually a user-generated content site that looks like a news outlet. So I guess it's whether Clubtone is a respectable minor national chart, and then if the entries can be verified - David Gerard (talk) 15:10, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can tell so far, Clubtone appears to be a website dedicated to dance music, no more than that. I can't see any evidence of editorial oversight, and judging by the site's name and the fact they sell ringtones, I wouldn't be surprised if the "Clubtone Top 10" was simply the ten most downloaded ringtones that week, but I'm happy to be proved wrong. Richard3120 (talk) 19:31, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:52, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One week on and "huge impact" has been changed to "significant impact" without any evidence of Styline's "significance", no clarification as to what the Clubtone chart is, and no evidence that "power house" is a term used by anyone else except Styline. I'm leaning delete here unless these issues are addressed. Richard3120 (talk) 20:42, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
yeah, I'm concurring. delete as it stands unless some convincing sources show up soon - David Gerard (talk) 23:37, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO; no indications of notability or significance per available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:33, 22 September 2016 (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.