Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by Andrew Kishore


 * 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. Disregarding the view of Abbasulu who is a blocked sock.  Sandstein  07:51, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

List of songs recorded by Andrew Kishore

 * – ( 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 🇺🇦 10:06, 24 January 2023 (UTC) Relisting comment: Can we please discuss the specific notability of this list, rather than having a generic discussion about lists of songs by artists? Obviously some are notable, others are not. The question is whether the discography of this artist is notable; and if so, whether a sourced list can be written. Everything else is out of scope. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 22:07, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Lists,  and Bangladesh. Shellwood (talk) 11:26, 24 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) 11:23, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * If that's your stance on sourcing then you should at least make draft articles first. One of Wikipedia's main pillars is verifiability and if you're not willing to put in the effort to do it yourself (AND do it well) then you shouldn't be making articles in the first place. You can't just throw a huge list of unreferenced, non-notable songs up and have everyone else do the work for you. FishandChipper 🐟🍟 20:41, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:NLIST, WP:SIGCOV and WP:V as well as WP:DEL14. Indiscriminate list with no effective sources. This is about 14 or 16th list I looked at, and not a single one of the confirms to policy. None of the articles are linked, none have references and none have articles. Its been copied and pasted from discog style sites.   scope_creep Talk  22:33, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep seems very well sourced. The subject is obviously notable, and there shouldn't be a SIGCOV for each song - this isn't how it works per WP:NLIST, which clearly says that "the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable". Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  18:37, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It is disingenuous to say its well sourced when it NOT well sourced. The consensus which has been established since about 2010 is that every line needs a reference. That is established consensus that is widely accepted. I would accept that consensus today and stop promulgating nonsense like this.   scope_creep Talk  12:20, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * On my second point, do you have any actual WP:RS sources that show any of these songs or a block of them are notable?   scope_creep Talk  12:25, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * "The consensus which has been established since about 2010 is that every line needs a reference" - cite it, provide evidence. There are plenty FLs which have one source for all. I've contributed to several FLs where I obviously cited every line, but I'm not sure this is required by policy. When you have such long lists, we should have other considerations. Maybe page splitting is better than not citing every line. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  15:13, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It is crass to create articles that are out of our scope, bordering upon WP:CIR. This is one such. The creating editor has attempted to drive a coach and horses through the rules of WP:N and WP:V. 🇺🇦  Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:58, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * When editors in good standing/WP:AGF tell you the facts about consensus you accept it. Stating stuff like "cite it, provide evidence" when its established consensus is bollocks. You need to really careful here what your saying, because if you keep making these statements, it means you making these statements elsewhere on Wikipedia, which means your damaging Wikipedia and spreading false information to other editors. Eventually they will all be gathered together by somebody, and taken up to WP:ANI and presented as a WP:CIR case. So you need to careful what your saying, because it directly effects other editors. Regarding the article, all those supposed single references in FL article are checked, to prove they cover the information presented per WP:V. This has not been checked. It is just an arbitary list of songs that happen to be included in one film per block. That is the very definition of being non-notable. Nobody looking at list can't tell if any of these songs are notable. That break WP:NPOV and WP:V. It is completely arbitary and break the idea of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. These are not encyclopedia articles. They are trash junk. The references here are schoolboy stuff and indicate WP:CIR issue on its own.    scope_creep Talk  12:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @Scope creep: False information is when no evidence is provided. If there is consensus, it must have been achieved somewhere. The burden of evidence is on you and so you are the one who needs to be very careful about what you're saying and about the policies you're citing here, which I find irrelevant. I don't know about you, but I did work on lists which achieved FL status, so I should know what I'm talking about. By asking you to cite evidence, I'm doing exactly what should be done, and I'm not spreading anything, but on the contrary, demanding that correct information be provided. And you saying that my request that you provide evidence is "damaging wikipedia" is exactly the bad faith you're accusing others of acting in. I should remind you that just a few days ago you were warned by me for your violation of WP:NPA on one of the other AfDs, which you rightly apologised for, so your claim about WP:AGF is uncalled for. This WP:ANI threat is amusing to me, but please note it is not acceptable in any way, and I think ANI could be well used against those who try to intimidate editors into not expressing their opinions. Please adopt a more friendly rhetoric when arguing with editors even if they disagree with you. In case you didn't realise this, I disagree with you. Thank you, Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  13:00, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable singer, just needs sourcing and more information. Consider emboldening the songs and putting them in the first column, rather than the films.♦ Dr. Blofeld  16:43, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * They don't do bolding, much now and it would likely be reverted.  scope_creep Talk  12:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * As most of the list is un-sourced, this is another wall of text. No critical discussion about any songs, reviews or charted info, explaining why any of this is important. Delete, even with what's sourced, we don't have enough for an article. Oaktree b (talk) 00:42, 2 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep - Poorly sourced, but can be improved. Valiaveetil (talk) 02:54, 5 February 2023 (UTC) sockstrike  Girth Summit  (blether)  17:07, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * comment The list contains 1,057 songs. There are citations for 47. Only 2 citations support everything on the song row where cited: year, film, song title, that Kishore sang it, composer, songwriter, and co-artist. So 99.8% incompletely supported, and 95.6% entirely unsourced.
 * Verifiability requires that all mainspace content, including lists, be verifiable. The burden lies with the editor who adds material to show that it is verifiable. Abbasulu has had since 17 April 2022 to do so. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:54, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - as it stands it is simply an indiscriminate list, plus fails WP:VERIFY. Onel 5969  TT me 20:44, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete There's no question that the singer is notable, but that doesn't mean the verifiability policy should be thrown out the window with regard to any list of their works. How can our readers know that this list isn't just made up? The author's other poorly sourced stuff exists argument is unpersuassive, and one to be avoided in these discussions. Shahid's statement that it "seems very well sourced" is divorced from reality. Dr. Blofeld is arguably correct that all the list needs is sources for the 99.8% of it that isn't properly sourced, but we keep content because we know sources exist, not because we hope sources are out there somewhere. Unless and until sources are found, the small amount of sourced material is better dealt with in article Andrew Kishore than in a stand alone list. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:15, 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.