Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rani Hazarika (singer)


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Star  Mississippi  02:06, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Rani Hazarika (singer)

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

Previously deleted at Rani Hazarika. She's sung a few more songs since then but I see no real new evidence of notability * Pppery * it has begun... 15:20, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Women,  and Assam.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  16:27, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete - I'm not seeing any significant coverage except for pieces which are pretty obviously intended to be promotional, whether promoting her or the industry in general. I haven't found any honest neutral coverage, and that suggests GNG is not met. Basically the same concerns as the original discussion. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:21, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I've found substantial coverage of the artist in reputable media outlets few of them are like and recent once, which I firmly believe meets the notability criteria. While some articles may seem promotional, it's common for media houses to highlight positives when interviewing artists and they most of the times don't keep the view point neutral. Let's discuss further to ensure a balanced perspective. Rainylights (talk) 04:47, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete While some of the projects she had helped to provide tracks stand on Wikipedia, I don't see her currently passing WP:GNG. All I find are just press releases that fail to provide any significant coverage of the subject.-- Tumbuka Arch (talk) 22:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep I respectfully disagree with the proposal to delete Rani Hazarika's article. While I understand the concerns raised about potential promotional content, I believe there are sufficient neutral sources to establish her notability. Hazarika's contributions to the music industry, including her involvement in various projects and collaborations, have been documented in reputable sources beyond mere press releases. Moreover, her continued activity in the field since the previous deletion discussion indicates ongoing relevance. Therefore, I argue that the article should be kept, as it meets Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion.Rainylights (talk) 08:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This is a useless platitude that misunderstands the reason for deletion entirely and appears to be AI-generated. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:34, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Dear Pppery,
 * In addition to your baseless accusations, I'd like to highlight that I can see, two articles published—one in the Times of India and another in Nework KNT —both praising the artist in question. It's worth noting that I have no affiliation with either publication. These articles further affirm the importance of the artist's work, casting doubt on the deletion of the Wikipedia article. I await a thoughtful response.
 * Previously, you placed a Speedy deletion tag on the article, which was later declined by the checker User/Administrator User:Ivanvector, citing legitimate reasoning G4: not substantially identical (CSDH).
 * Now, resorting to an AFD is like digging a well in the desert while knowing there is no water Rainylights (talk) 04:01, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * More AI-generated nonsense. The Times of India is useless for establishing notability. The Network KNT source, is, despite heaping praise on the subject, not actually WP:SIGCOV and I'm not convinced it's a reliable source either. Now, resorting to an AFD is like digging a well in the desert while knowing there is no water -> huh? I'm not following your analogy at all. The only thing that could mean is that I somehow knew this AfD was doomed to fail and was disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, and if you're really accusing me of that you need much stronger evidence for it. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:08, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep While doing preliminary research, the articles and links that show up in google, even though most are press releases about different song releases and events she has been part of, but the articles happen to be published by some of the largest Newspapers and Portals in the country, like Times of India, , ANI , Hindustan Times , Financial Express , Deccan Chronicle and India Today, The Print, IBTimes among others, some mentioning her as a sensation and others speaking in similar words, while a number of portals carry her interviews and achievements and contributions, suggesting she is very well known.  Hope the attached links help in arriving at better clarity about the decision. Hjeelani (talk) 09:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * From a very quick glance, you have cites to The Times of India, which is useless for establishing notability. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:34, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Closer look. Cites 1, 2, and 4 are useless as explained above. Cite 5 is not significant coverage, and cite 7 is reporting on a non-notable award mill, therefore also useless. Given the lack of any byline and such I'm not convinced cite 6 is a reliable source. For Cite 3 see WP:RSPANI - it's not a reliable source. Also keep in mind Paid news in India when trying to establish the notability of India-related topics. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * (These comments are based on the numbering as of when I originally posted the comment, further discussion above has shifted the reference numbers slightly) * Pppery * it has begun... 04:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You may check her new song 'Wallah Habibi Arabic" from current Bollywood Movie "Bade Miyan Chote Miyan" Rainylights (talk) 03:56, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * So? That's just more puff from The Times of India and of no value in establishing notability at all. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete: Doesn't pass GNG with SIGCOV or NMUSIC or NARTIST. Most cites used are TOI that are not reliable for BLP and no notability outside one song. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:14, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * She's Notable singer, It's worth noting that having 100 articles about an artist isn't necessarily the only measure of their significance. Reviewing the tabulation in the article with all sources might provide a clearer picture of her level of notability to you.
 * Additionally, her impact extends beyond just one song and encompasses multiple works, as evidenced not only by coverage in TOI but also in numerous other reputable portals.Its not just a one song but, multiple and its not just TOI but, many other articles from reputed portals and she does pass GNG with SIGCOV . Rainylights (talk) 14:59, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * KEEP. May not be amongst top singers but notable one. This, this, this, this and this covers the needful for WP:GNG per WP:THREE. --Twinkle1990 (talk) 03:34, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * One more good coverage by The Asian Age found here. --Twinkle1990 (talk) 05:03, 16 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Those sources are: a repeat from above, not significant coverage, not significant coverage, unclear why this article without even a byline would be a reliable source, "partnered content" which I would assume means paid promotion of some sort especially given its tone. And the Asian Age source is probably just more paid news in India given the tone its written in. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Pppery sigh! You asked for WP:RS and I gave. The Asian Age is paid? Such a shame. If so, I must say, WP:RS is really debacle forever.


 * If this AfD results out here, then outcome should be same. Twinkle1990 (talk) 17:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Do you really think a supposedly independent source would write things like As the name suggests Rani Hazarika is a voice with thousand attributes? And your AfD link is WP:OTHERSTUFF and not even a very convincing OTHERSTUFF, since I see no relationship at all between this AfD and that one other than that both are about musicians. * Pppery * it has begun...  18:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The Asian Age is WP:RS per consensus.
 * Next to it, Times of India is not non-reliable but "reliability matter on the contributor of the topic.", which means notable jpu8rnalist's writing in Times of India are always reliable. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:34, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The Asian Age is WP:RS per consensus. -> per consensus where? It's not on WP:RSP or WP:NPPSG where I would expect such a source to be documented. The issue with The Times of India isn't reliability per se, it's that it is known to accept payments from persons and entities in exchange for positive coverage, which makes it completely useless for establishing notability as all having an article in The Times of India proves is that you paid them, not an assessment of independent worth. * Pppery * it has begun...  03:13, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment Subject seems to be notable. Maybe I guess some works needs to be done on the article but I don't think deleting is a good option.--Meligirl5 (talk) 18:07, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * How, exactly, does the subject seem to be notable? Do you have any refutation to my analysis of any of the sources above? If you don't substantiate your opposition to deletion it will be completely ignored by the closing admin. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * From some of the newspaper seen. She seems to be notable but I can't say if the article needs to be keep because her case looks confusing to me. That is why I said the article needs to be improved and maybe if not deleted can be sent back to draft and has to pass through the WP:AFCREVIEW.--Meligirl5 (talk) 18:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Is she notable in a way that meets Wikipedia criteria? That does not appear to be the case, although I can see why she is known in certain circles. Vacosea (talk) 20:22, 20 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete: Not notable as of now TheChronikler7 (talk) 06:09, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Your Verdict feels like a final judgement from the supreme court judge. made without considering the arguments presented by the advocates or the significance of artist involved. Rainylights (talk) 13:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Irrational! !vote. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:29, 19 April 2024 (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.