Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vivek Venugopal (2nd nomination)

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 . Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:04, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vivek Venugopal

AfDs for this article:

[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)

Biography of a musician which is not properly referenced to pass WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. The only valid claim of notability seems to be that the subject is known for introducing a musical instrument called Visitar along with Erisa Neogy which is not a part of any of our notability criteria. Additionally the article is completely reference bombed. The references mostly consist of bad sources including blogs and PR self-published that do not count towards establishing GNG. Thesixserra (talk) 04:34, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and India. Thesixserra (talk) 04:34, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At the very least, these references appear to satisfy WP:SIGCOV [1] [2] [3]. Those are in the article but I'd add this from a quick google search, which is an interview but it's lengthy and not just a promo piece.[4] Yes, the article tone is promotional, and yes it's got a lot of garbage references, but this guy is an internationally touring musician with multiple albums and WP:RS press coverage. Does he need more? Oblivy (talk) 08:02, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
comment Looking at the first nomination this does not seem to be the 2nd nomination of the same article. That other article appears to deal with a journalist; no suggestion this is a journalist-turned-musician. Oblivy (talk) 11:37, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. That journalist has nothing in common with this musician. He is better known as Visita as most coverage is under this stage name. NDreteler (talk) 13:40, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Oblivy: I fixed it. Can you check and let me know which "garbage references" you're talking about? I can share my rationale afterwards. NDreteler (talk) 13:55, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the links seem thinly disguised press releases, such as [5] and [6] Also, at the time the article was nominated, it also had a string of links to the artist's website which are generally only good for establishing minor facts (in fact, how they were used) but not notability. Overall most of the citations seemed even at the time to be reasonably high quality. Oblivy (talk) 14:25, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Would the nominator mind explaining how this is not "properly referenced"? I thoroughly checked: each and every sentence is well-cited. "Blogs and PR self-published" - do you have anything to support this claim? The Hindu, Rolling Stone India, New Indian Express and its magazine Indulge, and Rock Street Journal all are very reliable and that's how this whole biography is cited. There is no mention of "PR" - they have proper "bylines" - if nom. had a chance to open them. NDreteler (talk) 13:45, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For Visita:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) NDreteler (talk) 13:47, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:09, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources in the article such as The Hindu, Rolling Stone, New Indian Express and others so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:10, 23 April 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.