Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adesh Samaroo


 * 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 of the debate was keep.  howch e  ng   {chat} 17:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Adesh Samaroo
The article, which is badly written, orphan and uncategorized, is a vanity pet project of a extremelly dedicated fan. Mecanismo | Talk 22:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Relisting this to generate more discussion. howcheng   [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149;  e  ] 19:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:MUSIC, References, and Google results (I won't list everything, but the info is easy to find). This person seems to be a national success in his area of music, and has some following internationally abroad (though restricted to his ethnic group).  Also, admittedly the article was (and still is) very poorly worded, but that can be addressed.  I could understand the nomination, if the nominator indicated they looked at all this information, and felt he still failed WP:MUSIC (reasonable people can differ on that, as measuring success in a small country is trickier than measuring it for the US), but the nomination seems to be utterly oblivious to WP:MUSIC which is what we should be discussing.  I may be wrong about the artist meeting WP:MUSIC but I'm certain WP:MUSIC should be the basis of discussion and not whether the article is/was "badly written, orphan and uncategorized".  --Rob 14:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Notability threshold seems to be met, but the article is a mess. If it can't be cleaned up by the end of the AfD, then the article should be deleted and started anew. B.Wind 02:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I disagree. If somebody knowledgable/interested (e.g. familiar with this music scene) doesn't clean it up properly, then anybody can simply replace it quickly with a a 2-3 line stub, leaving behind the links, stub tag, and category.  There's no need/purpose for deletion.  Deletion policy says we shouldn't delete because "Article needs a lot of improvement" (which is the obvious case here). --Rob 02:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, AFD is not cleanup. Kappa 09:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree with Kappa; this could potentially be salvagable. -Colin Kimbrell 22:17, 19 December 2005 (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.