Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star/Boom Boom


 * 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. Jenks24 (talk) 11:24, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Star/Boom Boom

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Nothing turns up. Fails WP:GNG. Störm  (talk)  12:41, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:20, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:20, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:20, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 04:16, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Unsourced since creation >10 years ago, and no sources seem available (at least under the English title). Fails GNG and NMUSIC. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:16, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose I have now added a few sources to establish the album's notability. Maestro2016 (talk) 15:11, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, these references do not succeed in establishing notability. Gopal and Moorti (2008) is a passing mention not even comprising a full sentence.  Discogs is user-generated content and not a WP:RS.  The AllMusic link is malformed and returns a 404 error but even the correct artist link neither mentions this album nor lists it in the artist discography. The India Today link is just to the magazine's Google Books page and has no indication of any issue or article about this album.  None of these are in any way significant. The only reference that may not be is Sheikh (2012) and that is a mere three sentences.  To satisfy WP:NMUSIC, the phrase "...but the album was successful..." in Sheikh needs both qualification and verification. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:02, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I've addressed some of these issues. What about now? Maestro2016 (talk) 17:21, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * , I suggest you read this essay which discusses the practice of "reference bombing," which is similar to what you've done with this article. In short: adding multiple poor references tends to be detrimental to, rather than positive for, the case in retaining an article.  In linking to reference bombing, I want to make it very clear that I am not accusing you of bad-faith editing such as attempting to conceal anything but rather that having many poor or passing references tends to strengthen the impression of non-notability.  That is, if such obvious diligent attempts to substantiate notability are only finding cites of this quality, it is probably has not ...received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject...
 * In particular, Apple Music download links are not WP:RS, not being independent (they are trying to sell you the album, after all). Hub and Jeffries (2003) suffer the same issue as Gopal and Moorti (2008) mentioned above and the India Today reference remains unverifiable.  I tried to independently verify the article reference you gave and, despite having access to professional and academic article databases, cannot find it.  The quote you added seems to indicate that this was a contemporary album review, but even that requires verification.  I hope this helps explain my views. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:57, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The India Today reference can be verified through Google. As for Discogs and Apple Music, I was unaware they were unreliable sources. In that case, I'll remove the Apple Music reference. Maestro2016 (talk) 18:27, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Oppose absolutely not. A rather poor nomination if I may say so. One problem that should have been picked up is that there is reference to the album under the name Boom Boom alone, for which there are plentiful book sources. We haven't even started to look for Urdu sources, which are completely legitimate on en.wp when English sources lack. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:41, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:40, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep the reference are fixed and they satisfy GNG. The reference used are reputable papers and I can say the content is not trivial, in addition there might be non English sources since its not their main language. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:21, 7 December 2017 (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.