Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arunita Kanjilal


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 10:41, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Arunita Kanjilal

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

GNG not met. The subject comes after Pawandeep Rajan, which was recently redirected to Indian Idol 12 per Articles for deletion/Pawandeep Rajan. Suggesting a redirect but inviting community discussion for more clarity. ─ The Aafī   (talk)|undefined  14:50, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women,  and India. ─  The Aafī   (talk)|undefined  14:50, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * What is the argument for deletion, happy to fix it. All irrelevant references will be removed. Musicwikilover (talk) 17:42, 22 April 2022 (UTC)


 * KEEP : Fixed encyclopedic references and multiple references. This article was clean earlier, removed unecessary references. Musicwikilover (talk) 17:54, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * KEEP : Added notable e-Patrika (newspaper) publication inviting the subject as guest editor on their e-paper. https://epaper.patrika.com/imageview_535372_1763729408_4_78_17-04-2022_4_i_1_sf.html
 * Significant independent published work of the subject meeting the notability (music) criteria of "to include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries" Musicwikilover (talk) 18:04, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * None of the sources is helpful in establishing notability. ─ The Aafī   (talk)|undefined  18:23, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Please check the e-Patrika (newspaper publication). It is a significant independent publication. Hope this source has been checked before the claim that none of sources establish notability. Musicwikilover (talk) 18:28, 23 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete: Lack WP:RS. Besides that, its WP:TOOSOON case. -Hatchens (talk) 03:24, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:11, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * KEEP: I don't think it was necessary to open this discussion. She is notable and source are reliable. Montubhai (talk) 2:30, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * , How do you feel she is notable? Most of the sources cited are unreliable and puff, others don't have significant coverage. ─ The Aafī   (talk)|undefined  12:45, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * She is notable, the sources are reliable Indian publications including the independent e-newspapers where she was invited as guest editor. Musicwikilover (talk) 16:53, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * being invited as a guest editor doesn't make someone notable. ─ The Aafī   (talk)|undefined  18:37, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Sir -
 * As per below - The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Thus, before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility of existent sources if none can be found by a search.
 * WP:NEXIST, WP:NPOSSIBLE
 * I would suggest to search for sources rather than just propose for deletion as indicated above.
 * Also, as I said the independent e-newspaper publication from a State of India asked the subject to be their editor for a day is surely notable for me. There is no affiliation of the subject with the said publication. Musicwikilover (talk) 17:24, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * In order to be notable, one needs to either pass the WP:GNG criteria or any WP:SNG criteria and the subject passes none of these. I agree a plenty of coverage exists but it doesn't meet the guidelines such as WP:SIGCOV, WP:INDEPENDENT and WP:RS. That's to say, someone doesn't become notable if they receive some advertorial and routine coverage. ─ The Aafī   (talk)|undefined  17:32, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete: the main problem is with respect to WP:SIGCOV and even with WP:RS here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RS6784 (talk • contribs)
 * Delete Lacks coverage. Looked at the first five references. Very poor, no specifically about her, mostly about the competitions. No other reliable coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Perhaps too soon, but currently non-notable.   scope_creep Talk  11:04, 2 May 2022 (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.