Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shumona Roy Biswas

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 delete. Consensus is that the two sources found aren't sufficient. —SpacemanSpiff 06:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shumona Roy Biswas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Google search only leads to download links and videos of her songs. Ayub407talk 18:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:48, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:48, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:48, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:12, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:50, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sorry but this is either WP:TOOSOON or just not notable. I did an extensive search per WP:INDAFD, but even the custom Indian news search brings up a grand total of 2 sources with literally no other coverage.
  1. The Tribune India - This is a very brief coverage in the context of an album review.
  2. Times of India This article is almost an interview (primary source) More importantly, it is so badly formatted that I am wondering how much journalistic editing has happened.
I am really unhappy with the quality of the sources. Considering the fact that literally nothing else is available, I will go with a delete per WP:WHYN. There is also no evidence that the subject passes WP:CREATIVE. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:32, 20 September 2016 (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.