Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soul of K3G


 * 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   redirect to Kabhi Khushi Kabhie Gham. ‑Scottywong | speak _ 16:48, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Soul of K3G

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Song does not pass notablity of WP:NSONG BollyJeff  ||  talk  19:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect Song fails WP:NSONG and ought to be redirected to the artist's article. Ducknish (talk) 20:53, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Or to the films article, Kabhi Khushi Kabhie Gham..., since the artist (composer or lyricist) do not have many individual songs listed on their pages. Same comment applies to all six song articles based on the film. BollyJeff  ||  talk  01:10, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Either Delete or Redirect to the movie article. -- ɑηsuмaη  ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ 17:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable. Not worth redirecting also. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 12:55, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 19:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect, per Bollyjeff, as a google book search seems to give satisfactory results, including a separate book published on the song itself. The film article would be the best target. Secret of success  ( talk )  14:55, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Not exactly. The google 'book' description says "High Quality Content by WIKIPEDIA articles!" My original vote was for delete. I would say redirect on a few of the songs, but not this one. BollyJeff  ||  talk  16:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah! Even the description gives same lines written in the lead of the article. But i wonder what they wrote in 72 pages. Maybe they use large font. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 16:45, 11 May 2012 (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.