Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kayda (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 merge to Tabla. Consensus is that available refs to not establish notability per relevant guidelines. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 17:36, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kayda[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)

The topic of the article appears to be for a musical phrase, however, the specific phrase that this article is about is not notable; all sources are self-published, and the article has several NPOV issues. Edit: the article has undergone a redesign; the NPOV issues were mostly fixed, however the sources still do not establish notability. JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 02:27, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The content now has been changed....please review now and tell me if there are any faults in the page Kayda. ShubhanTelang (talk) 03:15, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:41, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is not self-sufficient to be recognized as an independent article. At best some information can be merged or exported to tabla, though mostly it sounds like how to or tutorial. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 13:43, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Tabla. Clearly is a thing, but if the given references are a fair sampling of what sources are available, then the subject does not have the legs for a standalone article - I would say only two (the Rhombus book and Hindustani Classical Music page) can work as somewhat reliable sources under our guidelines. Thus, treat as subsection within a larger article, where it is easier to get away with borderline refs. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:32, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Kayda is a topic that should be kept separate as it is a very important topic in Tabla. But if it is to be merged with the page of Tabla, then I think it should be merged rather than deleting the whole page. ShubhanTelang (talk) 02:57, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge ArshA03 23:35, 15 May 2024 UTC [refresh]

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.