Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bollywood songs


 * 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   no consensus. Stifle (talk) 17:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Bollywood songs

 * – ( View AfD View log )

An article on Bollywood songs. Poorly sourced, disrupts neutrality, and is likely to be useless for all purposes relating to the article's subject. A category exists, I believe, having a list of notable Bollywood songs, and this one has only certain songs, some of which are unnotable too. There is another article for Filmi covering most of the stuff about Indian music, which is not restricted to Bollywood alone. Not only that, I believe this article is used in the Bollywood article in the "See also" section, as well as in a main article in some other section. It has little relevance to the article.  X.One   SOS  08:09, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: The content of the article sort of violates the Content forking policy as the article Filmy exists (and exists in much better manner). Mentioning only 10 songs is a joke. The rasas mentioned have no connection shown with the songs mentioned that makes it more like a random collection. The description and "wowness" of songs are personal opinions. The section of "Pop Song revolution" mentions stories of age when the revolution was long gone in history. The article does not even have any scope of being rewritten into anything more sensible. Category:Indian songs covers all notable songs on wikipedia. Please Delete!-Animeshkulkarni (talk) 16:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you mean Filmi instead of Filmy. --Lambiam 19:03, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh right! -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 21:40, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Filmi. --Lambiam 19:05, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note — I don't find any advantage in redirecting this page as no useful content can be found, and the past versions of the page must NOT be accessible as they are nothing but fancruft and spam. This article must not be created as long as Filmi exists, and almost all info has been mentioned elsewhere in articles like the latter so delete would be the best option. What do you think?  X.One   SOS  07:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete — Per above reasons.  X.One   SOS  07:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - per nomination. VasuVR  ( talk,  contribs ) 12:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep but revert to stub & rewrite. The article is worthy but the content is all crap. I have begun a cleanup and adding references. The article Filmy is not an analogue of this film for it to merit being considered as worthy for deletion.AshLin (talk) 15:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Even then, the article's name is just not right, it should be "Music of Bollywood" and if you really think this is stored with potential, you can userify it and re-write it. Btw, we are referring to Filmi, which is a genre relating to Indian Music, covering all aspects and not only Bollywood.  X.One   SOS  15:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I have added eight referenced statements and rather than go to the trouble of deleting and recreating, I think this one can be salvaged here and now. With this and more edits, it can serve as a base for a well-referenced article. With change in content, I request dissenting editors to reconsider the deletion, as it would only add more process to its recovery, which I am sure is at least as acceptable an alternative as simple deletion. Struck out since it is considered as CANVASSING. Article in present form copied to user-space in case consensus is to delete. AshLin (talk) 17:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep it: Agree with Ashlin, the article needs some more work. As of now, it looks better after few clean. The term Bollywood songs, is often referred many a times. -- Karthik Nadar 17:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think deleting and userification would be better, as there is a page called Filmi talking about Indian cinema. After it has been finished, it can be added to filmi with a section titled Bollywood songs and not an article, as far as my view is concerned. What are your thoughts?  X.One   SOS  13:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * My thoughts are that we wanted to delete the article because it had crap in it, not because the topic was not notable. In just a couple of hours, I could round up some six odd RS to give it some flesh, in time we can add more. Considering that full books are written on Bollywood song and dance, the topic is inherently notable. Deleting it now would just be insisting on completion of the process for the sake of process, not because the article is not in satisfactory condition at present. Why not let the article live and save me the time of userification, transferring to user-space etc? Creating a section in "Filmi" would definitely make sense instead of an article if there were not so much sourced material to add. Imo, editors may consider the article's retention now on its own merits and not because of its former state. After all retrieving an article is better than deleting it, if the topic is notable, don't you agree? AshLin (talk) 16:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Fine, but do you want to userify or keep it? And, it needs to be changed to "Music of Bollywood" if kept.  X.One   SOS  12:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep: Agree with Ashlin. I think there is definitely an encyclopedic article here. No need to rush on deletion! Veryhuman (talk) 17:57, 23 January 2012 (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.