Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Tamil songs recorded by S. P. Balasubrahmanyam


 * 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:14, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

List of Tamil songs recorded by S. P. Balasubrahmanyam

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

Fails WP:NLIST. Note that WP:NOTDATABASE applies. Few, if any, tracks pass WP:NMUSIC. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 23:14, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Lists,  and India.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:34, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - since this is an extension of List of songs recorded by S. P. Balasubrahmanyam, they should have been grouped into one single AfD. The rationale for keeping them though remains the same. WP:NOTDATABASE does not apply here, since this isn't "an indiscriminate collection of information". It is not a database, it is a list, a legitimate one, which needs sourcing, just like every list of recorded songs by other singers. I suggest that we start a project of sourcing them all instead of deleting a page which so much time and effort have been put into. Other than that, the notability of the songs isn't as notable - fact is the majority of films are notable. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  11:07, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails WP:NLIST, and does not come close to meeting WP:VERIFY.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:32, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Redirect to S. P. Balasubrahmanyam. Fails WP:NLIST per nom. Part of the list can be covered there. SBKSPP (talk) 01:22, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:41, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - the listing is nowhere an "indiscriminate collection of information". Could only be relevant if WP decided that no list of recorded songs could have a place here. Similar articles do exist with even poorer sourcing. Otherwise it just needs expansion and proper sourcing, not deletion. Most of the films already have enough references and the songs may be traced upon searching on the web. Abbasulu (talk) 18:08, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Tracing upon the web is not Wikipedia works, nor how it ever worked. That is a really poor argument. It is assumed per WP:V that every sentence is reference. That is definition of WP.   scope_creep Talk  12:52, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete Fails WP:NLIST, WP:V and WP:SIGCOV. Another structured list from this editor with no effective references. Again for some reason, what poor sourcing there is a done on a film for some reason. Content has been copied/pasted from clickbait, WP and discog/IMDB style style sites with no effective filtering to determine what is notable and what is not. Fails WP:DEL8, WP:DEL14. Wikipedia is not place for this type of content.  scope_creep Talk  12:49, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: Per Nom and . Comments: Sources can verify content and not advance notability as provided by NLIST. The article can be "richly referenced", with all manner of sources, some maybe even indirectly related, but If these sources don't satisfy WP:NLIST: Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list., The sources will suffice for content but not satisfying notability. I am not sure why keeps insisting "the listing is nowhere an "indiscriminate collection of information"", when common sense and evidence clearly support a made-up list from one or more "unidentifiable sources" are undeniably an "indiscriminate collection of information". Maybe reading the essay Discriminate vs indiscriminate information and the included Other policies are still in effect. The artist may be phenominal, a legend, a master, and any other flowery word we add (and I personally would agree), that does not make the many lists any more notable. Please Note: Notability and the included GNG and SNG, uses evidence from reliable and independent sources, per the policy of verifiability. The guideline enjoys a community-wide consensus, currently having involved 833 editors, 2,439 watchers, 11,296 pageviews in the last 30 days. Arguing for inclusion would be better presented in that article with an RFC, to gain community consensus, over I like it, or trying to ignore the "rules" that is still subjected to the more broad community consensus. Thank you, --  Otr500 (talk) 17:49, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete this completely non-encyclopaedic cross-categorisation Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:06, 7 February 2023 (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.