Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Bengali songs recorded by Shreya Ghoshal

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. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 04:15, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bengali songs recorded by Shreya Ghoshal[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All of these lists are WP:INDISCRIMINATE listings of apparently all individual songs recorded (not "written" or "first recorded" by) by this artist. Most are not backed up by a single source (thus failing WP:V); and are otherwise probably information which is of interest only to very dedicated fans of the subject. Wikipedia is not a fansite, an itunes directory, or, effectively, a database (which is what these lists are). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:42, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, Lists, and West Bengal. ––FormalDude talk 04:00, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hemantha (talk) 06:06, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the entries are verifiable via the linked film articles, but I agree with the rest of the nomination. While I haven't checked, some sources might be available which explore her combined body of work and thus justify perhaps one list article. I do not see any basis for one article per language though. Hemantha (talk) 06:21, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Ultimately, I appreciate the work that @Bubaikumar has done here. However, I agree with the nominator that they do not meet Wikipedia's minimum requirements for verification. ––FormalDude talk 06:40, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep verification might be an issue, but then it's why this article could be improved rather than deleted. The page is not an indiscriminate listing, as suggested by the nominator, nor is it a directory (as defined on WP:NOT for both), and I can't see how a list of songs recorded by a specific artist could ever be dismissed as a fansite. We have numerous lists of songs recorded by artists or filmographies, and never would I imagine such an argument for their deletion. Sources must be added, but WP:CONRED clearly suggests that this should not be a reasoning if improvement can be offered. That's what Wikipedia is all about. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:25, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The page is not an indiscriminate listing, as suggested by the nominator, nor is it a directory (as defined on WP:NOT for both), and I can't see how a list of songs recorded by a specific artist could ever be dismissed as a fansite. That is again (now for the fourth time) an unargued, plain proof by assertion. These pages are both WP:INDISCRIMINATE (due to sheer size; but also due to being "Summary-only descriptions of works.") and WP:NOTDIRECTORY (due to being, clearly, "Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit.") Refusing to acknowledge the reality of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and persisting with a personal, unsubstantiated opinion, will only make reality hit harder. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:26, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RandomCanadian: It must be proof by assertion on your part, my friend. Going by your interpretation (or misinterpretation) of WP:INDISCRIMINATE and specifically "Summary-only descriptions of works", no article which lists songs or films by an artist merits a WP article. And to top it all off, if artists are particularly prolific, their work is even less suitable for a WP list. The same goes for WP:NOTDIRECTORY - I completely disagree with your description of this page as a "simple listing without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit". Other than citing the same irrelevant policy without being able to explain its association to the proposed page, wikilawyering about it, and addressing everyone who votes against your nomination time and again (on this and others), you haven't proved anything and I find your rationale quite feeble. Let me then recommend again that you let people cast their votes without being forced into an empty argument with you, and the AfD run its course. Thank you, Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:54, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you come here and directly call my arguments unfounded; then don't complain that I'm "bludgeoning" when I directly address you (since you directly addressed my arguments) and show how wrong you are. You refusing to accept the validity of WP:NOT is now becoming something of a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. The only other part of your comment which warrants a reply is the OTHERSHITEXISTS argument, and that just to point out that this, except in the cases when it is a false equivalence, is indeed a good reason to delete the other stuff, too. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:58, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RandomCanadian: No no, I do not refuse to accept the validity of WP:NOT - I refuse to accept your interpretation of it, which is simplistic and unwarranted (please take no offence for I intend none, it's not personal). I can't see how WP:OTHERSTUFF is relevant here now - I didn't mention a particular article but just said that your rationale suggests that "no article which lists songs or films by an artist merits a WP article". Which is exactly what your flawed interpretation of policy contributes. Your point about "come here and directly..." - I'm afraid you completely misunderstand the process of AfD - people cast their votes based on their view, and it goes without saying that, if they think an article should be kept, they are obviously going to cast doubt on your arguments. The problem is that you seem to not accept that people might disagree with you and find your "arguments unfounded", and this is pretty evident in your bludgeoning here and elsewhere. This doesn't help the process, so let's at least agree to disagree. Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:20, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Disagreeing with interpretations of policy is fine. Repeatedly calling my interpretation "flawed", without offering any reason why it is flawed and instead simply dismissing it in a true ad lapidem style, is where I draw the line. Are these pages "simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit"? Considering that the only contextual information provided is, at best, the subject's biography (often copied exactly between the different pages), which is not contextual information about the list topic, there's not much room for anything but a "yes". Are these "summary-only descriptions of works"? yes. There's not much, if any, interpretation required here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:31, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RandomCanadian: Well, calling your interpretation flawed and disagreeing with is practically the same thing, I believe. And clearly, I did explain why, it's just that my reasoning does not satisfy you, I guess. That all these songs are performed by the same singer is not basic shared contextual information, but even if it was, that wouldn't be enough to dismiss it because it's not a simple listing and neither does it lack encyclopedic merit, as the quote says. You highlight one part of the quote. Your example of "List of airplanes" (which you compared to a list of this sort on another AfD) shows that your position dismisses every page which lists songs or films by an artist on WP and considers only part of the policy. Then you will bring sourcing, which is another issue and not at all a reason to delete a page per WP:CONRED. Then you will mention its excessive length with a claim that I find weird at best, as if to suggest that Shreya Ghoshal should be blamed for being more prolific than, say, the Beatles, whose list of songs is not at all a directory, according to you, for reasons you can't explain. Also weird though is your original point that the existence of such a page as the one proposed here for deletion is more suitable for a fansite. Well, we're not going to see eye to eye on this issue, I guess. Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:59, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So, in short, your "reasoning" as to how this does not fail WP:NOT is (quoted from your comments above):
This page is not an indiscriminate listing nor is it a directory (no further reasons provided why it is so, see [1])

I completely disagree with your description of this page ([2])

your interpretation of it, which is simplistic and unwarranted ([3])

it's not a simple listing and neither does it lack encyclopedic merit ([4])

Reasoning being the drawing of inferences or conclusions through the use of reason; the above is definitively not "reasoning", since it shows no supporting evidence, no logically sound argument, lacks any attempt to engage with counter-arguments, and is pretty much an "I'm right you're wrong" monologue coupled with a blatant disregard for the facts (if List of Hindi songs recorded by Shreya Ghoshal is not a "summary-only descriptions of works", then nothing is). As such I'll stop wasting time with people who flat-out refuse to argue about it, and let a reasonable closer come to their conclusion about how much weight these non-arguments should be given.

Your example of "List of airplanes" (which you compared to a list of this sort on another AfD) shows that your position dismisses every page which lists songs or films by an artist on WP and considers only part of the policy. Still persisting with the false equivalence? Again, the Beatles list contains a total of 300 entries, all solidly backed up by reliable sources. List of Bengali songs recorded by Shreya Ghoshal - on its own, ignoring all of the other similar lists nominated here, has 375; List of Hindi songs recorded by Shreya Ghoshal has over a 1000; ... These lists are simply not comparable in any way due to sheer differences in scale; and the additional problems posed by WP:V issues mean they are really fatally flawed. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:53, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RandomCanadian: Getting an accusation of false equivalence from someone who compares pages of singers' songs to a theoretical "List of airplanes" is becoming amusing. Even more so though is you cherrypicking phrases from my explanations while all you did in your "reasoning" is quoting irrelevant lines from WP:NOT and giving the same simplistic rationale that this page (and others) is too long (as if Indian singers are to be judged for being too prolific). Please, I don't get what we're doing here; what I see here is a clear case of desperate WP:BLUDGEONING and intolerance to others' contrasting opinions (further evidence of this can be found in your replies to those who vote here after me). This isn't what I would like to waste time on and keep arguing with. My vote is keep and my opinion of this nomination has been made clear already. We're done here. Shahid • ^Talk2me 08:37, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your position here is riddled with oblivious hypocrisy. ––FormalDude talk 09:33, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FormalDude: A) I wonder what makes you want to address me for the first time with this rude, unconstructive and baseless comment. B) Your opinions (or lame way of expressing them) do not interest me. C) Discuss content and not me. D) Actually no, I'm not sure I want to discuss anything with users like you. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:22, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is a list of original songs "first recorded" by the artist. Can't see how it is any more WP:INDISCRIMINATE than other lists of works (such as filmographies and discographies). -- Ab207 (talk) 17:07, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can't see how a list with over a thousand unsourced entries is INDISCRIMINATE? Too bad. If there are other similarly large and excessive, unsourced lists of works, they should also be deleted. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:55, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Acceptable article subject by a notable Indian singer, it just needs sourcing. This seems more like a case of WP:I DON'TLIKEIT. We don't discriminate against artists because they are prolific. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:46, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What an utter textbook strawman which looks like WP:ITSIMPORTANT ("Acceptable article subject by a notable Indian singer"). We do discriminate against articles which fail WP:V and WP:NOT; and the second condition can't really be fixed with "just needs sourcing" RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:16, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You admit the article needs additional sourcing, therefore implying that is not suitable for mainspace, yet you've voted keep. Make it make sense. ––FormalDude talk 09:31, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Discussion seems to be split across another similar, mostly-identical AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by Lata Mangeshkar — DaxServer (t · m · c) 12:22, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Discographies of singers, when verified and discussed in reliable sources, are of encyclopedic interest and thus wouldn't fall under WP:INDISCRIMINATE. It is telling that we have an entire WikiProject dedicated to this purpose. The article in its current state does not include sources for most of its entries, but that does not mean that they don't exist.
- Considering all the 2022 songs from List of Hindi songs recorded by Shreya Ghoshal, we have:
  - "Jab Saiyaan": coverage in The Indian Express
  - "Heer Raanjhana": coverage in Hindustan Times
  - "Ami Je Tomar": coverage in The Siasat Daily
  - "Mere Dholna": coverage in Firstpost
  - "Makhmali": coverage in ThePrint
  - "Gulabi": coverage in The Free Press Journal,

but our article lists unsourced entries for all these songs. I cannot personally verify each of the hundreds of entries in the article within the course of this deletion discussion for obvious reasons, but it seems to me that there isn't a problem with sources not existing, and I disagree with the interpretation that this information does not have a place on Wikipedia when sources exist. The problem, then, ultimately lies in this article not carrying these sources. As this essay eloquently puts it, an article which may currently... lack sufficient sources... can be improved and rewritten to fix its current flaws. The remedy for such an article is cleanup, not deletion. Best, DeluxeVegan (talk) 16:10, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:04, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for the same reasons as given at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by Lata Mangeshkar. Shreya Ghoshal is notable, with 292 cited sources. Many of them discuss her work, the topic of the list, which is also notable. Plus, of course, we should never delete anything that might resolve an argument in a trivia quiz. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:41, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Coming here from WP:ICTF, Discography of an internationally notable artist. Such articles are split following WP:CFORK, when they grow too large. Dont use WP:BURO to delete articles that people look for. If you dont want a separate page, it will have to be merged into one discography article. There is no question of deletion. Venkat TL (talk) 14:15, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Urdu can be merged with Hindi. Other than that there is not much to do here. WP:CFORK is being followed. Venkat TL (talk) 14:18, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discography of an internationally notable artist is besides the point. In its present form, this fails WP:NOT. Whether the artist is notable or not does not mean that an excessive, unsourced and indiscriminate (most of these songs are not notable, and thus this fails WP:CSC as being an exhaustive listing that is clearly not reasonably short) is acceptable. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:13, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RandomCanadian You've made your point quite clear. I'd advise stopping now — DaxServer (t · m · c) 15:56, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Briefly pointing out WP:ATA or other arguments which miss the point shouldn't be controversial. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:06, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As with the parallel AFD, I'm not really seeing the WP:NOT issue here. A shorter list for a less prolific singer would not raise an eyebrow, so this appears to be a perfectly fine use of WP:CFORK. These lists also aren't mere information-dumps; among other things, they connect the song to the film it was sung in (many of which are bluelinked), which is potentially quite helpful to the reader. These lists need more sources, but there doesn't seem to be any question that the information is verifiable. -- Visviva (talk) 14:58, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All per previously discussed AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by Udit Narayan. No change since then in policies and deletion guidelines that may suggest in deletion of this article. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:38, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just refuting the "no change" bit: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Bengali songs recorded by Runa Laila; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by Armaan Malik. And OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a good argument to begin with. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:41, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RandomCanadian: It's interesting that you brought up specifically these two AfDs which clearly should not have been closed and were clearly deleted too early. WP:DRV is in order. Thank you! Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:19, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're free to keep making me laugh. Like here, the only keep arguments were "but other similar stuff exists". Like here, any reasonable closer would have (and correctly has, in these cases) dismissed such arguments which miss the point. But feel free trying. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:24, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Shshshsh I am shocked. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by Armaan Malik at worse should have been relisted or merged. DRV for both is in order. Please proceed. Venkat TL (talk) 11:48, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@User:RandomCanadian: Okay, if you say so. The fact you're not willing to read beyond what suits you does not mean others' arguments are not valid.

@Venkat TL: I have little time at the moment, will do once I get more time. Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:41, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ghoshal is a high-profile singer and has been nominated for multiple major awards, including for her work in Bengali songs. Many of these have millions of views on YouTube and were reported in Indian media. I don’t see how it’s any different from many other similar lists we have on Wikipedia. Yes, it obviously needs sourcing but we should do that instead of deleting. FrB.TG (talk) 20:55, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The singer being notable misses the point. WP:OSE misses the point. This failing WP:NOT cannot be fixed with sourcing (although the lack of sourcing does indicate additional issues). Closer should disregard the above and all similar non-policy based comments per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and WP:NOTAVOTE. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:00, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How will sourcing it not fix it? Isn’t that what the issue is here: failing of WP:V? Also, WP:NOT is a very vague way of disregarding an article. OSE definitely applies if thousands of other similar articles exist, including even featured lists. If this is sourced entirely, it will be no different from those lists. If we’re to delete it based on any other reason than WP:V then all the other similar articles also need to go. FrB.TG (talk) 22:13, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

thousands of other similar articles How many of these literally include thousands of entries? How many of these lack so many sources it is probably more worthwhile to WP:TNT and start from scratch? How many lack any pertinent context and sources showing such except for basically a copy of the lead of the parent article? Simply saying "other similar stuff exists" is not convincing usually, even less so when the "similar" stuff is not actually similar to begin with... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:01, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So your approach to this is "let’s delete it because it’s too long"? That is absurd. Deletion is not clean-up. There are ways to cut it down (maybe only include the most notable songs?) but deleting the lists, one of which gets 250k views a year, is not the answer. If it fails WP:V, we can start by sourcing it. Nothing is beyond fix here. FrB.TG (talk) 04:16, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As previously noted by DaxServer, the discussion splits across several identical AfDs. The nominator has just opened another AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hindi songs recorded by Asha Bhosle. A previous one for Armaan Malik has been restored by the closing admin after closure for further discussion. Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:45, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is wide spread disruption and wastage of time by one guy with wrong understanding of notability policies. Similar Afds. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by Neha Kakkar Venkat TL (talk) 08:30, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. They meet WP:NLIST per above arguments. SBKSPP (talk) 00:06, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.