Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sreevalsan


 * 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, but the peacock terms have to go. Krakatoa Katie  00:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Sreevalsan

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article does not offer any clear reasons why this singer is notable. It looks like he's released several albums, but the biographical section looks like more of a promotional tool than an indicator of his success. Any thoughts? Cue the Strings (talk) 06:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Per the two articles from The Hindu already linked from the article at the time of nomination, and the numerous others found through Google news: cab (talk) 06:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.   cab (talk) 06:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Carnatic music. I don’t think a real need of encyclopedia article at this stage per this and this -- Avinesh Jose  T  08:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Which says, "A musician or ensemble ... is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria. 1. It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable." Which is clearly the case for this guy. Even if he were non-notable, I don't see how redirecting to the type of music he sings would be any kind of helpful redirect for users, or why information about him should go on that page. cab (talk) 08:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please note that the article is actually created for “Dr. Sreevalsan J Menon”. Some of your above mentioned comments on search results are re-directing to piped links. As per my search, it doesn’t show much notability. To some extent, those two hindu news are ok but, can not consider as independent source. This is almost same as this. There are many Carnatic musicians in India who doesn’t even have articles as they all not much notable like this. -- Avinesh Jose  T  09:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * For each of your points:
 * There are many Carnatic musicians in India who doesn’t even have articles as they all not much notable like this --- see WP:OTHERCRAPDOESNTEXIST. This debate is about this article and its sources, not about whether people have had time to write articles about other similar subjects, or whether those articles have reliable sources or not.
 * This is almost same as this. That's a person being directed to a show on which she was the anchor. That's very different than directing a musician to his genre.
 * Some of your above mentioned comments on search results are re-directing to piped links. I don't understand at all what you mean. Piped links are Wikipedia links where the text of the link is different than the linked article. That has nothing to do with Google search results.
 * Finally, even searching on the name "Sreevalsan J Menon" gives 24 Google News hits, e.g. these 3 beyond those already listed on the article. And why exactly do you claim The Hindu is not an independent source? cab (talk) 09:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply (below):
 * There are many Carnatic musicians...We create articles based on a person’s significant contributions, well known work and wide notability per per this and this. In this case, The hindu news 1 is just mentioned his name in three places with photo (of course) along with OTHER musicians (note that the article has not exclusively created for this musician). And news 2, is also speaks about a group work (mentioned three artists) and doesn’t consider as an exclusive news article for this musician.
 * This is almost same as this. In this case, though there is a hindu article existing, the WP article was deleted. Because, there are no significant contributions from the person and nothing more to write as an encyclopedia article.
 * piped links...I was talking about the term 'pipe link' during a search. Because, you mentioned (in the very first comment) that searches on ‘Sreevalsan’. But most of them are redirecting like a WP:PIPE link as that the ‘Sreevalsan’ is quite common name in Kerala (India) & many results are redirecting to some other WebPages (speaks about different Sreevalsan's).


 * As you later did “Dr. Sreevalsan J Menon” (hardly gives 10 results) or remove ‘Dr’ gives another 24 results. 100% I agree that Hindu is an Independent news source. But none of those articles have been exclusively created for this musician. Therefore, still, in my opinion, the article must be re-directed/deleted at this stage. The rest is up to decision maker. -- Avinesh Jose   T  05:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.   —David Eppstein (talk) 00:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Hindu articles seem more than enough for notability. Hobit (talk) 21:16, 18 January 2008 (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.