Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by Lata Mangeshkar

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. BD2412 T 00:44, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs recorded by Lata Mangeshkar[edit]

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

List of songs recorded by Lata Mangeshkar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems like a WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection; with very few sources to back it up (thus also mostly failing WP:V). Wikipedia is not a song database. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:33, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Lists, and India. Shellwood (talk) 15:33, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not enough notable songs. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 04:50, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I couldn't believe this article was actually up for deletion when I saw it. There's nothing that can be better justified than this list, and WP:INDISCRIMINATE does not apply here to begin with. That this article needs more sources and verification is another story, and it needs to be improved accordingly, not deleted. Shahid • Talk2me 11:59, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "I can't believe it" is not a reason to keep this. This is a listing of every single song supposedly recorded by this person. It obviously very much does not belong on Wikipedia, as Wiki is an encyclopedia, not a database. The lack of suitable sources for this is similarly a fundamental issue. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:18, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @RandomCanadian: If you're quoting me, at least quote me right and don't take my words out of context. I said "I couldn't believe this article was actually up for deletion when I saw it", and it was just an introductory note. This certainly was not the reason or my rationale for keeping the article. A list of songs does not turn into a database just by virtue of its structure, just like an actor's filmography is not a database. WP is an encyclopedia which includes lists, and this list is more than legitimate. The original use of WP:NOTDATABASE is quite gratitious, frankly speaking, as this page is not an "indiscriminate collection of information" (the section actually provides specific examples of what a database could mean, and a page like the one you seek to delete is not one of them).
    Moreover, I do not understand the WP:OR claim. Do you suggest that only sources that mention all her songs together are required? It's clearly not what WP:OR stands for (basically a conclusion not warranted by reliable sources, synthesis of material, or lack of direct evidence for the existence of a particular topic). There are plenty of sources which just need to be added (either per song or per film). This topic exists - this artist is described as among the most recorded singers in history. If she does not deserve a page detailing her body of work, I don't know who does.
    Having contributed to a number of featured lists myself, I know for sure how it works and how it could potentially work on this page as well. See List of songs recorded by the Beatles as a brilliant example of what could and should be done on this page. I suggest everyone to be bold and contribute. Suggesting to delete is always the easy way out (no offence meant to the nominator, just a general observation). Shahid • Talk2me 15:28, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not understand the WP:OR claim - the lists claims to be a "List of songs recorded by Lata Mangeshkar" but " does not contain all songs sung by Mangeshkar." As such, which method it used to select the songs, and how the listing was created, remains entirely unknown and unclear (did somebody go through various catalogue/CD listings and tried to compile a list? That is explicitly WP:OR, since Wikipedia is fundamentally built on research that has been collected and organized from reliable sources, not "on research collected and organised by its contributors). Given this; and given the age of most of these recordings (many, most, are well over a half-century ago, from a region of the world where sources are not typically very easy to find and accessible), it is absolutely impractical to verify the accuracy of its contents.
    This list fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE because of it's sheer size. For example, we don't have a (single) List of airplanes even if those can be verifiably sourced to exist or have existed, as such a list would be monstrously large. WP:CSC provides some general guidance, and states that lists of "every item that is verifiably a member of the group" should only be created if they are reasonably short. By any definition of the term, this list is not "reasonably short" (for comparison, the Beatle's list includes just over 300 songs, which is far fewer than this one; which has over 1300). Given there is no obvious selection criteria for how to narrow this down (how many of these songs are individually notable? I have no clue, but the lists provides none either); there is no solution that wouldn't necessitate starting over from scratch (and well, losing all of this unsourced, unverifiable content is not a great loss -- WP:V is a fundamental policy, "this singer deserves a page detailing her body of work" is not).
    This list also fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY, because the purpose of Wikipedia is not to provide a catalogue of works by artist, even if they are very popular or "one of the most recorded singers in history". There are plenty of sites which do this. Wikipedia, however, is an encyclopedia, a "summary of knowledge". In the same way we don't provide overly detailed nitty-gritty statistical accounts of sports events, we shouldn't provide all-inclusive database-like catalogues of works with no context or reliable sources by singers, even if the singers are very popular. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:24, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @RandomCanadian: I'm sorry, I did not read the entire thing because I'm busy and can't be bothered to justify my vote to the one who wants to delete it in the first place because this nomination is, in my view, not justified. The comparison to "List of airplanes" is frankly ridiculous. All the songs recorded by one particular singer are not even remotely comparable to a list of objects. Moreover, the mention of a directory is also irrelevant. To sum it up, either both List of songs recorded by the Beatles and this list are notable, or none. Shahid • Talk2me 10:30, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not read the entire thing because I'm busy and can't be bothered to justify my vote but then you complain that, despite a length justification provided by me, this nomination is, in my view, not justified. You can't play two tunes on the same fiddle. To sum it up, either both List of songs recorded by the Beatles and this list are notable, or none. That entirely and absolutely misses the point, since whether this is notable, or not, does not change the fact it fails WP:NOT and is unverifiable as it stands. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:43, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @RandomCanadian Great, then go ahead and put up every page listing songs recorded by artists for deletion. WP:NOT is, again, absolutely irrelevant here. This page is neither a directory nor is it an indiscriminate collection of information, so I don't think any of what you say above holds water because the very premise of your rationale is, in my view, simply wrong. And this is why, this nomination is, not justified. Shahid • Talk2me 09:10, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Great, then go ahead and put up every page listing songs recorded by artists for deletion. I've already done so with a few others. You insisting in perpetuating a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument is not helpful. I'll again say that the comparison with the Beatles list is very much a false equivalence; the Beatles list is much better sourced (thus it doesn't fail WP:V) and is much shorter (300 entries vs. 1300 entries).
    WP:NOT is, again, absolutely irrelevant here. This page is neither a directory nor is it an indiscriminate collection of information, so I don't think any of what you say above holds water because the very premise of your rationale is, in my view, simply wrong. I have provided detailed reasoning why this indeed does NOT belong on Wikipedia or on anything that wishes to define itself as an encyclopedia. You flat out refusing to engage with said reasoning and instead repeatedly dismissing it (now for a third time) as "not justified" or "simply wrong" is a classical proof by assertion, which is proof of exactly nothing at all. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @RandomCanadian: Your so-called "detailed reasoning why this indeed does NOT belong on Wikipedia" is not satisfactory, I'm afraid. Mainly because it's practically baseless, frankly speaking, despite large walls of colourful text. Just the instance where you compare this page with a potential "List of airplanes" (by the way, if you don't want others to claim other stuff exists, at least do not justify your point by asserting other stuff does not exist) creates a false, misleading analogy between songs recorded by one particular singer (who happens to be among the most recorded in history) and a random list of objects. As I said, in no way does WP:NOT apply for this page - nothing turns it into a directory or a random collection - that's why your reasoning, however detailed, is uncalled for in the first place as it relies on wrong premises. Please see the list on WP:INDISCRIMINATE - totally not true of the current page. Please see again WP:NOTDIRECTORY - nothing of what it lists as a possible example of a directory could describe the current page. The association you're trying to make between WP:NOT and this page is grossly unwarranted and, sadly, borders on wikilawyering, and your own conclusion (or, as you nicely put it - proof by assertion) of "indeed does NOT belong on Wikipedia or on anything that wishes to define itself as an encyclopedia" is a clear case of WP:DOESNTBELONG.
    Secondly, your text includes many wikilinks so please let me suggest that you read WP:CONRED and kindly familiarise yourself with other important portions of the AfD process and criteria, especially "Consider whether the article could be improved rather than deleted" and others. Thank you for your time, I think we have made our points clear to each other and I guess it's better to agree to disagree. Shahid • Talk2me 10:10, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Failing WP:NOT is not something that could be improved rather than deleted. Equally, for sources, the WP:BURDEN is on those claiming they exist (as I can't prove a negative). What I do find, like "Lata Mangeshkar recorded 50,000 songs in 14 languages", suggests even more that listing them exhaustively (as this list attempts to do; thankfully only very partially) on Wikipedia would obviously be excessive and fall even more afoul of WP:NOT. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:24, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @RandomCanadian: No, it doesn't fail WP:NOT, as I explain above and not going to do again. Shahid • Talk2me 08:55, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I love how you earlier accused me of wikilawyering but then go on to dismiss the NOT argument because Please see the list on WP:INDISCRIMINATE - totally not true of the current page.; despite WP:NOT itself being clear that The examples under each section are not intended to be exhaustive. As for "totally not true on the current page"; that is again an ad lapidem dismissal which is in this case empirically wrong. Of course, you're free to keep thinking whatever you want, just stop making an "I am right you are wrong" argument - denying that these lists are Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit is at best disingenuous. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:51, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @RandomCanadian: Well, I'm sorry but the burden of evidence is on you to show why WP:NOT does indeed apply here. You haven't been able to do it, but this is understandable becuase this policy is irrelevant in the first place and I think you know it yourself. It is saying that this page is a "simple listing without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit" that I find disingenuous. There's no way you can show the relevance of this quote here because it would mean every list of artistic works is. The same goes for "Summary-only descriptions of works". The only way you are able to provide your "reasoning" is by mixing up cherrypicked parts from different policies, none of which could suffice on its own to justify this nomination. As for the "I am right you are wrong" argument - do you realise that's exactly what you're doing here? And proof is in every single user's vote to keep this page (and others). You address them all and as I said - you can't accept the fact that your opinion is being countered. This results in constant bludgeoning which simply destroys this discussion. Shahid • Talk2me 14:12, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    the burden of evidence is on you. Ok. "simple listing without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit": We have
    1. A list, incomplete, of songs by a given artist
    2. Individual entries do not give any information about the songs except maybe the year and the movie for which it was produced.
    3. Most of these songs (in fact, all of those that are currently in the article) are not in English, so, for most readers of English Wikipedia, there is literally no contextual information provided by the list (since, well, I, like most people, have no clue what stuff like Jab dil men tere dard could even be about)
    4. The vast majority of these songs do not even have an article here where readers interested could find more "contextual information showing encyclopedic merit".
    5. Of those mentioned in the previous point, the vast majority are from movies which don't have an article here either - so not contextual information to be found anywhere on Wikipedia.
    6. The vast majority of these songs are not backed up by a single reliable source.
    7. Of those that do have a source, most seem to be from an apparently collaboratively-contributed (WP:UGC) catalogue run by some random person on the internet ([1]), which doesn't look like a reliable source, and even if it were, itself doesn't provide any further contextual, encyclopedic information.
    8. The only "contextual information" whatsoever provided is a poorly written and unsourced first paragraph, which doesn't give much if any pertinent information about the songs themselves - in fact, readers would be far better served on that aspect by going directly to Lata Mangeshkar.
    9. The sheer size and number of entries, their variety precludes any effort to make a reasonable attempt at providing context without it being a helplessly vague and not-really-about-the-songs concise biography of the singer. And apparently, per below, the sources which do discuss Mangeshkar are at best insufficient for this endeavour.
    I'm not going to compare in-depth with the Beatles list (which you seem to like quoting so much as a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument), but that one has in-depth, reliably sourced information about the songs (of which there are far fewer, thus helping provide a pertinent summary of them), who wrote them, the context behind them, ...; and is also from a group whose main period of activity was much shorter, with the main group spanning altogether less than a decade, and hence all of their songs are far more obviously related to each other in many aspects, as sources show, than merely by the fact of being sung by the same person.
    If that does not satisfy you, well, frankly, I don't care, because that would just mean you asking for evidence of this was just a bad excuse to waste my time. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:40, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @RandomCanadian: It's amazing - none of your points actually supports or serves as evidence for a "simple listing without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit". This is just a continuation of your flawed interpretation of the policies you're citing. The worst of it all is your point about songs not being in English - this is exactly the problem with many AfD nominations off late and this pretty much exposes the true motives behind such nominations. India happens to be the largest film producer in the world, and I can assure you most film titles would mean nothing to monolingual English speakers, but this is not what WP is about. What I'm left with after this wall of text by you is the saddening understanding that many of the AfDs are based on nothing but pure systematic bias against something that doesn't sound intelligible to them.
    With all due respect, the only one who's been bludgeoning this page is you, so please spare me the point about your time being wasted. I didn't call you into this conversation, and trust me, I hope we're finally done here. Shahid • Talk2me 14:59, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, we're done here, because none of your points actually supports or serves as evidence for a "simple listing without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit". is one more, one too many, dismissal without even the courtesy of a reasoning behind. exposes the true motives behind such nominations. is also egregiously WP:ABF. We don't give special treatment to pages because the subject is not in English (and, well, of all places to complain about, India, which was and still is a member of the Commonwealth and where English is formally an official language, well...) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:37, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @RandomCanadian: I did let you know below that I do acknowledge you mean well, so I definitely assume good faith on you even if I disagree with you. It's all I can say. As for the rest of it, as I suggested before, let's agree to disagree. Shahid • Talk2me 22:43, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A list of songs recorded by an extremely popular singer is clearly within the realms of acceptability here. It needs improving..♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:14, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "This definitely belongs in an encyclopedia" is not a convincing argument, even less so when a clear reason why this fails WP:NOT; WP:V and WP:NOR has been presented. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:31, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you please stop twisting what everybody says? The list easily meets content requirements in the same way that the Beatles list does. A list of songs with dates and some facts by a major artist is encyclopedic, it just needs improving with sourcing and content. You could make an article like this a featured list. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:40, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Totally agree with @Dr. Blofeld. Moreover, I should suggest to @RandomCanadian - we are not here to convince you, and we do not need to meet your standards or subjective interpretation (or misinterpretation) of policy. It is also worth noting that addressing every user who votes against your opinion is detrimental to the efficiency of this process. Shahid • Talk2me 10:51, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not twisting anybody's words. clearly within the realms of acceptability here is pretty much, quintessentially, WP:Clearly notable. If you make bad arguments, expect them to be countered. AfD is WP:NOTAVOTE but a discussion to reach consensus. The list easily meets content requirements in the same way that the Beatles list does except it doesn't because it has far, far more entries (WP:NOT, as argued) and because it additionally fails WP:V. If you refuse to discuss, then that's on you. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:39, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think your arguments do not warrant deletion at all. WP:CONRED might be a useful read for the right course of action for the (valid) points you're raising here. That AfD is not a vote does not mean editors offering their view should be addressed by the nominator or be forced into a discussion until they accept the nominator's fixed position. I'm sure you mean well, by the way, just pointing this out for your own sake, but suit yourself. Shahid • Talk2me 09:23, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The nomination was surprising, but the lack of suitable sources was even more surprising. Internet searches appear to indicate a significant difference, both in quantity and quality, in the secondary coverage Beatles' songs have received compared to this topic, so I do not think the mentions of List of songs recorded by the Beatles are appropriate. Hemantha (talk) 10:35, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Lata Mangeshkar is clearly notable. The list of songs, is notable per WP:LISTN. That is, various sources have discussed her work. That is typical for the works of a musician, writer, painter etc. The list could be included in the article on the person, but in this case there are so many it is natural to break them out as a stand-alone list. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:35, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether the singer is notable is, first, irrelevant (notability is not inherited), but also entirely besides the point because this list is far too large to be acceptable (see WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:CSC). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:49, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:LISTN says "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources ... The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been." Aymatth2 (talk) 15:26, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Again entirely besides the point. The objection to this list is not on grounds of notability, but on grounds of it failing WP:NOT and WP:V, as well as WP:CSC: 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 and could be useful or interesting to readers. The inclusion of items must be supported by reliable sources. Not only is this list not "reasonably short" (with over a 1000 entries); but it is very far from being "supported by reliable sources". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:00, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
various sources have discussed her work - Aymatth2, Can you link or at least list these? Hemantha (talk) 13:42, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are 199 cited sources in the article on Lata Mangeshkar. Many of them discuss her body of work, the topic of the list. E.g. "Lata Mangeshkar: The nightingale's tryst with Rabindra Sangeet", The Statesman, 9 June 2022 or "Lata Mangeshkar: The Queen of Melody", Hindustan Times, 14 October 2019
    Aymatth2 (talk) 15:26, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are a lot of biographical and news-y links in Lata Mangeshkar and I'd say most of them wouldn't count towards establishing notability here. Both the refs you cite illustrate the issues. One says below that the content is sourced from wikipedia, among other things. The footnote in the other on Rabeendra Sangeet raises reliability questions - it says it was written by an English teacher for http://sahapedia.org. The discussion of the topic in that article is also quite short - four-five sentences at most. Sources similar to that, but more in-depth and reliable, are necessary. Hemantha (talk) 18:18, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I just picked the first two major newspaper sources cited in Lata Mangeshkar that discussed the subject in some depth. There are many more. Sources often discuss the work of an artist in more depth than other aspects of their life: the artist is notable because their work is notable. Wikipedia's coverage should include information on Mangeshkar's life and works. Given the amount of relevant material, it is reasonable to split it into two or more articles. The list is a bit large, which may be an issue for readers with limited bandwidth, so perhaps should be broken into sub-lists by language and, for Hindi, by decade. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:21, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I do agree with you that the topic should be notable; see my initial comment. But the reality is different and once I started trying to find reliable sources, I saw the same issues you've run into above. Hemantha (talk) 13:50, 10 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_songs_recorded_by_Lata_Mangeshkar&oldid=1093498687"