Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lahore Ke Rang Hari Ke Sang


 * 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. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 09:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Lahore Ke Rang Hari Ke Sang

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

The album is not notable. The person contesting prod deletion was using the arguments of WP:Other Stuff Exists which is not a good basis for proving this album's notability. He was suggesting that the nomination of the article had racial grounds just because the article was not a white american artist. I deny that accusation (as a person of colour myself) and point that user as well as others reviewing the discussion to WP:NALBUMS where it states that if an album only has a tracklisting it is unlikely to be notable enough for its own page and could easily be merged to the artist's page. The album has coverage from only two sources, no critical reception, no context, no charts and no awards so it is not notable. Lil-unique1 (talk) 20:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. The source that I added from The Hindu says that this album won "rave reviews and critical acclaim", thus confirming that it has been the subject of critical reception, and the one from Dawn is solely about this album, and in itself constitutes critical reception. And, as for the claim that this has "no context", I think that the nominator needs to look up the word "context" in a dictionary. I would add that the singer featured on the album is a Padma Shri recipient, an award that has only been given to just 2336 people in 56 years in a country with a current population of over a billion, so it is inconceivable that any of his albums would not be notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * comment, the artist winning awards makes the artist notable but doesn't necessarily make the album notable. The media (the Hindu source) says it got rave reviews but that is a slanted and bias view. without examples of those rave reviews it is WP:OR. basing notability on WP:OR and WP:Other Stuff Exists is not credible. The track listing for this album isn't even sourced. But again i state that based on simply a tracklisting (which is unsourced) and a media report saying that album recieved rave reviews the album in my opinion fails notability. don't forget WP:NALBUMS suggests that if a track listing is the main body of an article it should not have its own page, instead it should be merged into the artist's page especially considering that the page is unlikely to grow in size.Lil-unique1 (talk) 21:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * How on Earth is a citation to The Hindu, one of the highest circulation non-tabloid newspapers in the world, original research? In fact, as a secondary source reporting that the album won rave reviews and critical acclaim, it is more in keeping with our guideline on reliable sources than such reviews themselves, which could be considered primary sources requiring interpration. And on what basis do you think that it is slanted or biased? And please stop referring to WP:other stuff exists - my point is that an article on an album by an equivalent artist in the anglophone West would never be considered for deletion, not that such articles exist. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a circular argument. Both of us have expressed different points of view and are now trying to make our point using different words. I'm personally going to wait and see the outcome of the discussion. Lil-unique1 (talk) 21:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  —Phil Bridger (talk) 21:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  —Phil Bridger (talk) 21:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep IANS saying it won "rave reviews" is not OR. It is reporting. The Hindu and Sify carried the same report. If Reuters  describes an album as critically acclaimed and New York Times carries the article, would you say it is slanted and demand links to those reviews?. The Daily Star uses the same "rave reviews and critical acclaim" phrase. What we have as sources are newsreports carried by second widely read English newspaper from India and most widely read English newspapers from Pakistan and Bangladesh. GNG cannot get better than this.--Sodabottle (talk) 04:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per Phil Bridger and Sodabottle. They said it all. Salih  ( talk ) 05:52, 18 May 2010 (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.