Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by Armaan Malik

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 continue to discuss a merge if desired. There is no argument to delete the content. Whether it should remain as a list or be merged is a discussion that can continue editorially and does not require further extension of this AfD. Star Mississippi 03:18, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs recorded by Armaan Malik[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)

A WP:INDISCRIMINATE listing of apparently all individual songs recorded (not "written" or "first recorded" by) by this artist. Most of it is not backed up by a single source (thus failing WP:V); and it is otherwise probably information which is of interest only to very dedicated fans of the subject. Wikipedia is not an itunes directory or some other form of database (which is what this list is). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:39, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Albums and songs, Music, and India. ––FormalDude talk 04:01, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~delete~~ I cant be sure whats "T-Series Mixtape Season 2" is. The "saregamapa" is reality show/competition, not sure why Armaan Malik was there. Judge? Guest? Anyways, the list is indiscriminate, it lists literally every song the singer has sung. Verification of every entry is not possible (no sources available). The subject itself doesnt have any significant coverage, as in the term "List of songs recorded by Armaan Malik". The singer maybe notable but it doesnt make the list inherently notable. Also, fails general notability criteria, as the list doesnt have significant coverage. —usernamekiran (talk) 13:04, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
merge sourced content to parent article per BD2412. —usernamekiran (talk) 14:04, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:55, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Armaan Malik as WP:INDISCRIMINATE. SBKSPP (talk) 23:34, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SBKSPP: Do you mean merge? Because there's currently no list of songs at Armaan Malik. ––FormalDude talk 02:55, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FormalDude: Makes sense as well. But the list is too long, I prefer his singles to be merged to the article. Not sure about the rest. Still changing my vote. SBKSPP (talk) 01:21, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I closed this AFD with a Delete decision with a comment that I thought that the article being discussed could not be easily merged with the much smaller article on the artist. I was asked to relist this discussion so other options could be proposed so that's what I'm doing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:45, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this proably should have been part of the same deletion discussions for the Shreya Ghoshal AfD and the Lata Mangeshkar one, among others. WP:NOT does not apply here, this is a perfectly legitimate list, an extension of a notable singer. More work is called for to meet WP:V. Deletion is not the solution, nor is it justified. Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:57, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Discographies/recordings of notable musicians are encyclopedic as they are routinely published in academic reference works on musicians. The nominator's rationale that a discography is somehow excluded from encyclopedic coverage under policy at WP:NOTDIRECTORY is flawed. We include a list of novels written by novelists, a list of works by composers, a filmography of actors etc. A discography is a record of the creative output of musicians in the same way that a list of works is a record of the creative output by composers. Further, it's a reasonable content fork of the main article. This was a badly argued deletion rationale, with a potentially negative impact on wikipedia's coverage of creative professionals across the encyclopedia.4meter4 (talk) 22:08, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how NOTDIRECTORY is flawed. This is literally a textbook example of a Simple listings without contextual information and is also very much a Summary-only descriptions of works. Articles about songs should provide information about authorship, date of publication, social impact, and so on. These lists provide no such information; they in effect only serve as a glorified song-database. We don't accept statistics-databases "lists" for sportspeople, even if their name is Maradonna or Dhoni or Gretzky. I don't see why people think this kind of basically stats-only list is in any way acceptable. Even when we do have lists of creative works, these general are not allowed to be a bare listing of "everything in the universe that exists or has existed"! RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:43, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NOTDIRECTORY isn't flawed, your application of NOTDIRECTORY is flawed. Not directory was never intended to exclude a list of this kind, which is essentially listing the works (in this case recordings) created by the subject. Recordings are original works of art, and frankly an FA/GA article on Armaan Malik would require a discography (either in the article or in CONTENTFORK) in order to pass one of those article milestones. Your inexperience with articles in the arts is showing. In a list of recordings in an article on a musician is no more out of place, then a list of novels is for an article on a novelist. Under your logic, we would be deleting Mark Twain bibliography for failing NOTDIRECTORY which is absolutely ludicrous.4meter4 (talk) 01:58, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A textbook strawman. WP:CSC is clear that scale matters. Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group. These should only be created if a complete list is reasonably short. If we're speaking of FA/GA, a complete list of recordings is not required. In fact, one would assume that if we ever get to FA/GA for a musician, there would be sufficient sources discussing their work to highlight the most significant ones so that we don't have to give a complete listing. One would also assume that there exist sources to give some encyclopedic content (so that the data can be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources) for these listicles. No-one has bothered to show the existence of such; or how this listcruft does anything beyond being a straightforward database. Such content belongs maybe on other websites (like IMDB or whatever the equivalent for Indian singers would be), but not on Wikipedia. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:46, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think your argument is a straw man argument. A discography does not fall under any of the 6 criteria listed at WP:NOTDIRECTORY. A discography has context as it is limited to a single artist and their creative output (so criteria 1 does not apply). Likewise, it isn't loosely associated because the recordings are all by a single artist (so criteria 2 does not apply). A discography is not a non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations because the original works of art created by a musician are part of what gives them notability for encyclopedic coverage. (so criteria 3 does not apply). A discography has no genealogical basis (so criteria 4 does not apply). A discography is not an Electronic program guides (so criteria 5 does not apply). And a discography is not a resource for conducting business. (so criteria 6 does not apply). In short, there is no policy based application of NOTDIRECTORY to a discography. Likewise, the application WP:INDISCRIMINATE is flawed. Criteria 1 is not meant to be applied to a list of works by (artist, composer, actor, etc) in the way that you are applying it. That criteria is a summary of Contextual presentation which specifically addresses the development of articles on individual works of art, and not to lists of works. We currently don't have policy language in MOS or at NOT that specifically addresses lists in the arts, but perhaps we should. Regardless, work on contextualizing this particular. list could be done, but that is an editorial issue and not a notability issue. Best.4meter4 (talk) 02:36, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge only sourced content to Armaan Malik. If nothing can be sourced, then redirect. If things can be sourced, merge those. BD2412 T 22:47, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as with the other duplicative noms, and for the same reasons. In particular, the nom's rationale of WP:INDISCRIMINATE fails; these lists are not indiscriminate, and not only enhance our coverage of the notable parent topic, but also serve to helpfully link these songs to other encyclopedic topics such as the films they were sung in. -- Visviva (talk) 03:18, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 4meter4 and Visviva. FrB.TG (talk) 04:18, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep List of songs first recorded by the artist is a legitimate CFORK similar to filmography, bibliography etc. -- Ab207 (talk) 05:17, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I am a member of 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. There is no question of deletion in these AfDs. Especially when there is a long precedent of keeping such articles Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by Udit Narayan. The delete !vote above is the most absurd !vote I have read so far on Wikipedia. Venkat TL (talk) 08:35, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 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} 10:55, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment you would have a lot of difficulty convincing me that all of the above just casually ended up here and then copied their irrelevant and already refuted non-policy-based arguments from elsewhere just, you know, by random coincidence... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:29, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can't speak for anyone else, but I came into these conversations from the Village pump. If the response you are getting is out of step from what you would normally expect on AFD, that probably just reflects how badly out of step AFD is with the rest of the project. -- Visviva (talk) 16:24, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing that is out of step is people repeatedly saying "Keep the singer is notable" or "Keep per other similarly unsuitable articles". Thankfully, multiple people making the same policy-free arguments get mostly correctly ignored by reasonable closers. Wikipedia is not a song database, and this and similar lists contain nothing but bare database listings of songs. Unless people can show sources or something to make the listings of songs into something more than database entries, they're completely missing the point. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:44, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@:RandomCanadian, as a regular AFD reviewer I don't think the response you are getting is surprising. You are arguing a novel application of NOTDIRECTORY, and you aren't likely to get community support.4meter4 (talk) 23:42, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The list can be improved and meets requirements. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:57, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NLIST per above arguments. Now convinced enough. SBKSPP (talk) 00:12, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep perfectly legitimate subject for a list page. Artw (talk) 20:45, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD discussion has been proposed for merger to Armaan Malik, and a notice of the proposed merger was posted to that page on June 22. As such, this AfD discussion may need to be extended or relisted to incorporate input from that page.

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.