Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/O Tota Pakhi Re

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 Shreya Ghoshal discography. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:06, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

O Tota Pakhi Re[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nominating on behalf of 88.104.19.237 as per request on talk page: "Contested proposed deletion; Per WP:NALBUMS, "An album requires its own notability, and that notability is not inherited and requires independent evidence. That an album is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article. [..] Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article" §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:42, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge to Shreya Ghoshal discography, unless better sourcing can be found. Shreya Ghoshal is a notable artist, the album exists and merging is - in my opinion - a better option and service to our readers than deletion. On the other hand, the sourcing of the article - as it stands now - is insufficient to maintain a stand alone article. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 07:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which part do you think should be merged? A list of the tracks? Their times? Or just "It consists of 20 tracks"?

I'm not disagreeing exactly; leaving a redirect is fine; I'm just wondering about the 'merge' part, if there's anything worth merging. 88.104.29.3 (talk) 16:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It could be merged in accordance with other entries in the discography, see for example Swapner Pakha in the list. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 05:46, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah - I see what you mean - yes, fair enough, fine with me, thanks. 88.104.25.210 (talk) 07:52, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge The current article has only one viable citation; a feature article by a special interest, subscription newspaper. So, as others have stated, its not enough for a stand alone article. However, if a listing can be merged with a relevant article then that is a good thing and since the nominator has expressed no objection to that option it appears to be a good solution.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:34, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —SpacemanSpiff 05:09, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 18:41, 3 November 2013 (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.