Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by Radha Jayalakshmi

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.

List of songs recorded by Radha Jayalakshmi (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)

Fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Lists, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:30, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails
  WP:V. scope_creep^Talk 01:11, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep - the listing is nowhere an "indiscriminate collection of information". Could only be relevant if WP decided that no list of recorded songs could have a place here. Similar articles do exist with even poorer sourcing. Otherwise it just needs expansion and proper sourcing, not deletion. Most of the films already have enough references and the songs may be traced upon searching on the web. Abbasulu (talk) 11:26, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to
  WP:NLIST per nom. Part of the list can be covered there. SBKSPP (talk) 01:18, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:46, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per Nom and Scope Creep.
  WP:NLIST: 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 WP:No original research: Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. Not opposed to a "redirect" if consensus swings that way. -- Otr500 (talk) 17:22, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep - well referenced. Valiaveetil (talk) 08:04, 5 February 2023 (UTC)sock strike Girth Summit _(blether) 17:08, 5 February 2023 (UTC) [reply]
• Delete - fails
  WP:V, exceptionally poor on the referencing side and no evidence to suggest that this can be remedied Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:19, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - Fails NLIST and
  WP:VERIFY.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:45, 5 February 2023 (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.