Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hemant Brijwasi


 * 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 keep. Randykitty (talk) 16:35, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Hemant Brijwasi

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not enough coverage to pass GNG also fail for WP:REALITYSINGER being a winner of reality television doesn't make him notable Sonofstar (talk) 19:32, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 19:32, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 19:32, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:27, 27 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. Per nom. Megtetg34 (talk) 19:01, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep winning two national television singing competitions passes criteria 9 of WP:NMUSIC (only one criteria needed) as confirmed by reliable sources already in the article such as New Indian Express and the Hindu, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:37, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: The subject meets WP:BASIC.     Currently elaborating, please wait... ~  Aseleste  (t, e &#124; c, l) 05:06, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Evaluation:
 * A very detail biography of the subject, thus can constitute as wp:sigcov.
 * Excluding the interview section for not being wp:independent, leaving only the lead, the coverage is far removed from being a trivial mention (but may not be wp:sigcov) and can contribute to wp:basic.
 * While it may not be wp:sigcov, the coverage is still far removed from being a trivial mention.
 * May or may not be wp:sigcov, but is not a trivial mention.
 * Same as above.
 * With these sources, the combined is enough to meet wp:basic. ~  Aseleste  (t, e &#124; c, l) 05:23, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Regarding WP:REALITYSINGER, reliable sources have shown that the subject is notable outside of a reality television series, so it fails the second point. The subject also meets the WP:SINGER C9.  As the subject meets both WP:BASIC and WP:SINGER, the subject is very likely to be notable. ~  Aseleste  (t, e &#124; c, l) 05:31, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No, the above arguments that the subject won two television shows therefore warrants an independent article satisfies criteria 9 WP:MUSICBIO is factually incorrect. They were television shows. See WP:REALITYSINGER #2: Singers and musicians who are only notable for participating in a reality television series may be redirected to an article about the series, until they have demonstrated that they are independently notable. The subject is only notable for winning 2 television contests as you just stated, and lacks significant news coverage in verifiable sources. Therefore, there is not enough to merit an independent article per policy. Also, it's clear you don't understand what exactly WP:SIGCOV is. It's not a biography, nor is it a handful of articles that merely mention the subject. It's a reference to media attention and significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Topic fails notability requirements and should be deleted. Megtetg34 (talk) 20:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

no author name is written, It is hard to believe, it is independent
 * Comment: Add on after Megtetg34 valid points. If fails GNG also

This is again not independent, just an interview on winning the show.

,, No Author name are written. PTI is the Press Trust of India, so this is also not independent. Also, it's just written about winning the show and not in-depth about his own journey. Sonofstar (talk) 01:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Disagree. Winning two notable television music competitions clearly passes WP:NMUSIC as confirmed in multiple reliable sources such as The Hindu. Not all newspapers give bylines so that is not a factor. The reality singer link is for singers who only win one competition not two different ones which obviously makes their coverage more than one event and independent of each win. There is no valid reason for this article to be deleted in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:53, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: There should be at least 2-3 independent coverage, all the news website shared till now, give author bylines if you check other news links of those sites, it fails WP:GNG Rest no secondary coverage apart from show winningSonofstar (talk) 05:58, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - we have tended to keep the winners of major reality TV shows. Indian TV is a billion-person market. Bearian (talk) 15:47, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep based on winning music contests he meets WP:MUSICBIO. Expertwikiguy (talk) 02:29, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: No, Please share, where is the album or song published by him??? How come WP:MUSICBIO is applicable for a reality show singer. He is not even Passing GNG as it's all Press wired news he has. He must pass WP:REALITYSINGER which he fails.Sonofstar (talk) 05:58, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - Considering WP:REALITYSINGER: Assume the subject is only notable for two reality television series. Interpreting the guideline strictly, it fails C2 as the subject is not only notable for a reality television series.  But what about the spirit of this guideline?  Assuming being only notable for two reality television series still meets C2,  poses a problem, that is which reality television series of the two should we redirect to?  Therefore, the spirit of the guideline is really the same as the words of the guideline.For by-lines, they are only as reliable as the publisher itself.  A dependent publisher can put names that look independent as the authors.  Instead, the content itself is a much more reliable indicator of independence.  ~  Aseleste  (t, e &#124; c, l) 06:55, 8 April 2021 (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.