195:
which is not a good basis for proving this album's notability. He was suggesting that the nomination of the article had racial grounds just because the article was not a white american artist. I deny that accusation (as a person of colour myself) and point that user as well as others reviewing the
200:
where it states that if an album only has a tracklisting it is unlikely to be notable enough for its own page and could easily be merged to the artist's page. The album has coverage from only two sources, no critical reception, no context, no charts and no awards so it is not notable.
270:
is not credible. The track listing for this album isn't even sourced. But again i state that based on simply a tracklisting (which is unsourced) and a media report saying that album recieved rave reviews the album in my opinion fails notability. don't forget
231:
is solely about this album, and in itself constitutes critical reception. And, as for the claim that this has "no context", I think that the nominator needs to look up the word "context" in a dictionary. I would add that the singer featured on the album is a
426:
uses the same "rave reviews and critical acclaim" phrase. What we have as sources are newsreports carried by second widely read
English newspaper from India and most widely read English newspapers from Pakistan and Bangladesh. GNG cannot get better than
258:, the artist winning awards makes the artist notable but doesn't necessarily make the album notable. The media (the Hindu source) says it got rave reviews but that is a slanted and bias view. without examples of those rave reviews it is
298:, one of the highest circulation non-tabloid newspapers in the world, original research? In fact, as a secondary source reporting that the album won rave reviews and critical acclaim, it is more in keeping with our guideline on
160:
320:
This is a circular argument. Both of us have expressed different points of view and are now trying to make our point using different words. I'm personally going to wait and see the outcome of the discussion.
275:
suggests that if a track listing is the main body of an article it should not have its own page, instead it should be merged into the artist's page especially considering that the page is unlikely to grow in
236:
recipient, an award that has only been given to just 2336 people in 56 years in a country with a current population of over a billion, so it is inconceivable that any of his albums would not be notable.
302:
than such reviews themselves, which could be considered primary sources requiring interpration. And on what basis do you think that it is slanted or biased? And please stop referring to
154:
115:
88:
83:
92:
306:- my point is that an article on an album by an equivalent artist in the anglophone West would never be considered for deletion, not that such articles exist.
372:
346:
75:
120:
225:
says that this album won "rave reviews and critical acclaim", thus confirming that it has been the subject of critical reception, and the one from
175:
413:
142:
79:
17:
136:
459:
436:
387:
361:
330:
315:
285:
246:
210:
57:
303:
267:
192:
132:
422:
71:
63:
299:
182:
474:
36:
473:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
53:
397:
383:
357:
311:
242:
148:
49:
326:
281:
206:
432:
168:
379:
353:
307:
272:
238:
197:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
322:
277:
227:
202:
451:
428:
191:
The album is not notable. The person contesting prod deletion was using the arguments of
420:
carries the article, would you say it is slanted and demand links to those reviews?.
263:
259:
109:
446:
233:
403:
294:
221:
467:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
409:
416:. If Reuters describes an album as critically acclaimed and
401:
saying it won "rave reviews" is not OR. It is reporting.
105:
101:
97:
167:
444:per Phil Bridger and Sodabottle. They said it all.
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
477:). No further edits should be made to this page.
181:
8:
373:list of India-related deletion discussions
367:
347:list of Music-related deletion discussions
341:
371:: This debate has been included in the
345:: This debate has been included in the
7:
24:
219:. The source that I added from
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
292:How on Earth is a citation to
1:
72:Lahore Ke Rang Hari Ke Sang
64:Lahore Ke Rang Hari Ke Sang
494:
470:Please do not modify it.
460:05:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
437:04:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
388:21:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
362:21:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
331:21:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
316:21:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
286:21:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
247:20:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
211:20:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
58:09:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
414:carried the same report
262:. basing notability on
304:WP:other stuff exists
268:WP:Other Stuff Exists
193:WP:Other Stuff Exists
44:The result was
390:
376:
364:
350:
485:
472:
458:
455:
449:
377:
351:
300:reliable sources
186:
185:
171:
123:
113:
95:
34:
493:
492:
488:
487:
486:
484:
483:
482:
481:
475:deletion review
468:
453:
447:
445:
128:
119:
86:
70:
67:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
491:
489:
480:
479:
463:
462:
439:
423:The Daily Star
418:New York Times
391:
365:
338:
337:
336:
335:
334:
333:
289:
288:
250:
249:
196:discussion to
189:
188:
125:
121:AfD statistics
66:
61:
50:Bradjamesbrown
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
490:
478:
476:
471:
465:
464:
461:
457:
450:
443:
440:
438:
434:
430:
425:
424:
419:
415:
412:
411:
406:
405:
400:
399:
395:
392:
389:
385:
381:
374:
370:
366:
363:
359:
355:
348:
344:
340:
339:
332:
328:
324:
319:
318:
317:
313:
309:
305:
301:
297:
296:
291:
290:
287:
283:
279:
274:
269:
265:
261:
257:
254:
253:
252:
251:
248:
244:
240:
235:
230:
229:
224:
223:
218:
215:
214:
213:
212:
208:
204:
199:
194:
184:
180:
177:
174:
170:
166:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
144:
141:
138:
134:
131:
130:Find sources:
126:
122:
117:
111:
107:
103:
99:
94:
90:
85:
81:
77:
73:
69:
68:
65:
62:
60:
59:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
469:
466:
441:
421:
417:
408:
402:
396:
393:
380:Phil Bridger
368:
354:Phil Bridger
342:
308:Phil Bridger
293:
255:
239:Phil Bridger
226:
220:
216:
190:
178:
172:
164:
157:
151:
145:
139:
129:
45:
43:
31:
28:
323:Lil-unique1
278:Lil-unique1
203:Lil-unique1
155:free images
429:Sodabottle
273:WP:NALBUMS
234:Padma Shri
198:WP:NALBUMS
404:The Hindu
295:The Hindu
222:The Hindu
116:View log
427:this.--
256:comment
161:WP refs
149:scholar
89:protect
84:history
133:Google
93:delete
448:Salih
276:size.
264:WP:OR
260:WP:OR
176:JSTOR
137:books
110:views
102:watch
98:links
16:<
454:talk
442:Keep
433:talk
410:Sify
407:and
398:IANS
394:Keep
384:talk
369:Note
358:talk
343:Note
327:talk
312:talk
282:talk
266:and
243:talk
228:Dawn
217:Keep
207:talk
169:FENS
143:news
106:logs
80:talk
76:edit
54:talk
46:keep
183:TWL
118:•
114:– (
435:)
386:)
375:.
360:)
349:.
329:)
314:)
284:)
245:)
209:)
163:)
108:|
104:|
100:|
96:|
91:|
87:|
82:|
78:|
56:)
48:.
456:)
452:(
431:(
382:(
378:—
356:(
352:—
325:(
310:(
280:(
241:(
205:(
187:)
179:·
173:·
165:·
158:·
152:·
146:·
140:·
135:(
127:(
124:)
112:)
74:(
52:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.