Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeenia Roy


 * 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. Aleding declined to provide reliable sources to meet WP:GNG and instead countered with faulty keep rationales in a desperate attempt to save the article for deletion. No reliable sources = no article. Secret account 04:41, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Zeenia Roy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:BASIC. Refs provided in the article fail to establish notability and are trivial. Although she has done some background scores for some popular Indian movies, it doesn't pass WP:MUSICBIO. Harsh (talk)  17:57, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Harsh  (talk)  17:57, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Harsh  (talk)  17:57, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. She won an award here, a coupla mentions, but doesn't seem like sufficient sourcing to meet the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:08, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 18:53, 21 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. It seems to me this artist qualifies via WP:MUSIC - specifically numbers 2, 8, 9, & 10.  I'm not sure where Harsh found she did not so please indicate where my previous note is inaccurate.  Additionally, it seems that this artist definitely passes the WP:GNG by at least 3 of the 5 criteria.Aleding (talk) 20:50, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Please explain the following:-


 * Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart - Which music chart are you talking about?
 * My error - RETRACTED.Aleding (talk) 18:35, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Has won or been nominated for a major music award - She has won a Bengali-language music award given by a begali-language radio station. How is that a major award?
 * The classification of an award being major or not is not defined within the WP context (at least that I could find) and seems to be at least mostly subjective. If the consensus is that this award is not major, understood - but I don't think we can say that just because it's not a US or UK based award.Aleding (talk) 18:35, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Has won or placed in a major music competition - Which one?
 * Has performed music for a work of media that is notable - She has just given background scores for some songs.
 * I found that she is listed as "playback singer" in several movies. Agreed these are not "mainstream" movies per se but they are credits and lack of inclusion on IMDB can be something as simple as the fact that IMDB focusses hugely on Western cinema and very little on Bollywood and\or Asian film.Aleding (talk) 18:35, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * As for GNG, I have only this source which just mentions her and it is not even exclusively written about her. Harsh  (talk)  09:43, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I was not commenting on the number of actual cites - I was commenting that she appears to meet 3 of the 5 listed criteria in WP:GNG such as "Reliable" (2nd), "Secondary Sources" (3rd), "Independence" (4th).
 * To my understanding of this process, single instances of either meeting or not meeting select criteria are not reasons to either keep or delete. The idea is gain to consensus regarding all aspects - or as many as can be ascertained - about the subject in question.  Given the number of factors involving this artist, it seems to me that she meets the criteria to be included in Wikipedia.Aleding (talk) 18:35, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * According to which criteria it should be included on English Wikipedia, please feel free to explain with the help of Wikipedia's policy and not your own thoughts.— CutestPenguinHangout 19:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Everything I have stated is both referenced and signed - I'm not going to type it our again just for you - really not sure what more you need.Aleding (talk) 19:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

'''See → INDAFD Zeenia Roy
 * Delete - Subject lacks significant coverage in independent sources. — C</b><b style="color:#F0A000">ute</b><b style="color:#00A300">st</b><b style="color:#0A47FF">Penguin</b><sup style="font-size:50%">Hangout 17:42, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that despite the references you include, she still should not be included? Also, referencing the WP:GNG itself, failure to meet any or all of its criteria is not automatic grounds for deletion.Aleding (talk) 18:39, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you have misunderstood my !vote or lacks the basic knowledge of Wikipedia's policy for notability. Note- With INDAFD I'd mentioned the link which tells that the subject lacks significant coverage which is most important for the biographies of living person. BTW according to YOU which criteria meets to keep (include) the article on English Wikipedia? Are you aware, even this article fails WP:NMUSIC? — <b style="color:#D60047">C</b><b style="color:#F0A000">ute</b><b style="color:#00A300">st</b><b style="color:#0A47FF">Penguin</b><sup style="font-size:50%">Hangout 18:56, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * First off, I can definitely read and it's pretty clear what the policy is but it does seem evident you have a reverse understanding of how this works.Aleding (talk) 19:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * As evidenced all throughout WP in any number of polices, lack of meeting a criteria is NOT grounds for deletion. The presumption is that a given person is NOT included and then criteria are found to substantiate that the person should be included - in essence, it's one where inclusion has to be proved, not deletion as you seem to think.  If a person does not meet criteria in BIOs, then they might meet via any other number of criteria - in this case, maybe for artists.  All you have done here is suggest that this person does not meet one of many possible criteria (e.g. bios) and while I thank you for that, it does nothing toward the goal at hand.Aleding (talk) 19:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * As for your link - I'm not really seeing how that disproves anything - it illustrates several articles where the subject is mentioned.Aleding (talk) 19:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * A couple of pieces of advice: First - offer counters to someone's arguments rather than just re-stating your own; and more importantly second, do not take push back so personal. It might be beneficial to review one of WP's key pieces of advice which is to assume in good faith which I have done here with you though you have made it a bit challenging.Aleding (talk) 19:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Not notable enough. Fails WP:MUSICBIO/WP:ARTIST/WP:ENT. May be can consider in falling WP:TOOSOON. Athachil (talk) 08:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I do not see how one can say Delete without proving that a given person fails ALL criteria. The default for all persons is that they are NOT notable UNLESS they have been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject in which case they are presumed to be notable.  This does not mean they must pass every criteria for inclusion into WP nor does it mean if they fail one or more criteria, they should be deleted.  What this means is that if a given person passes at least one criteria, then they can be considered notable and therefore, included in WP.  In essence, for a person to not be included, they should fail ALL CRITERIA - not just a subset.  As I've outlined above, this artist appears to meet several criteria.  Specifically to your suggestion about this failing WP:TOOSOON, that appears to require a lack of sources which is not the case here.  I do agree that the subject fails many other criteria as well but that's not relevant in the overall scheme of deciding whether or not to keep the article.Aleding (talk) 16:42, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * my understanding is that the basic criteria that a biographical article must pass is the general notability guideline (which seems to me the widest net). If ZR meets the GNG, please show us with sources; right now, there is a paucity of sources in the article, and my searches have not yielded anything more substantive.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Well I think passing bio is just one manner by which a person can be included but certainly it is not the only method - I think that is part of the issue here. Many seem to believe that just because a person may fail one set of criteria, that further evaluation should cease.  This is not true - for a presumably notable person to not be included, they should fail ALL CRITERIA - not just those in bio or GPG.  Earlier in this debate, I proposed that the subject meets at least two overall criteria - both WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG.  I would ask to please review what I have included previously and then counter as you feel necessary.  In the end, this may come down to a subjective difference of opinion here - some may think what has been published thus far is not substantial enough and actually, if that were all that existed, I might readily agree.  But I think the published sources PLUS the others factors I mention all combine to support her inclusion.Aleding (talk) 17:58, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't see how she passes either WP:MUSIC or WP:GNG. Right now the article is in violation of WP:BLP with pretty much all unsourced material.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * OK - but if you don't think she meets either or both WP:MUSIC or WP:GNG, then I would ask to actually prove that rather than just saying she doesn't meet it. If my arguments presented above are invalid, then please feel free to take them apart.  As to the material being unsourced - not sure how that is true.  Everything I have discussed as well as what is in the actual is referenced.Aleding (talk) 18:23, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Nope, the onus is on you,, to make a case that she meets notability requirements; if you can't, and so far I don't see it, the article will get flushed. Thems the rules.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:28, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That's truly hilarious - let's see if I follow: I make an argument with supporting information, you make a statement that is counter to my argument but provide no supporting argument whatsoever - in essence just your opinion - and the onus is on me to prove you...not sure...wrong?  Isn't that what my argument is meant to do in the first place???  We're supposed to build consensus based on facts - not opinion - and statements without supporting arguments fail NPOV - i.e. asserting opinions as facts.Aleding (talk) 18:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Consider your statement "I make an argument with supporting information" -- nope, you didn't do that. You did not make an argument with supporting information. That's what's needed here, otherwise, flush-a-roonie.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:46, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Then I guess we need to agree to disagree - one would think that if my argument so easy to dismiss, then you would just hop on over, dismantle the argument, and go from there. And if you, or anyone, chooses to take that more productive route, then I will be glad to discuss it.Aleding (talk) 18:52, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Presuming, of course, that you have an argument to dismantle.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Everything I have argued is earlier in this article - near the top. All of my comments are signed so it should be pretty easy to follow.Aleding (talk) 19:01, 27 October 2014 (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.