Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kavita Shah

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:20, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kavita Shah (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)

No idea about how she passes our general notability guidelines or any of our subject-specific guidelines. I've no idea as to how this was accepted at AfC. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 06:46, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Two albums in Spotify. scope_creep (talk) 07:07, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is that one of the WP:NMUSIC criteria? Dom from Paris (talk) 18:14, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(jumping in) Presumably alluding to #5: Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels. The record labels are apparently CD Baby and Dot Time Records. If having an article here equates to notability, or if - as it appears - CD Baby is a self-publishing site, it would appear that particular clause is not met. Dorsetonian (talk) 18:29, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:02, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:02, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Due to aforesaid issues acknowledged and addressed as per edits and citations upon Kavita Shah. Woojy4 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 30

May 2018 (UTC)

• Clear Keep performances at the Kennedy Center and the Vermont Jazz Center are indications of "having made it" in the Jazz space -- the article is written with sufficiently reliable sources for GNG. Additionally, the newcomer awards further reinforce the GNG case, Sadads (talk) 14:32, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The source that supports these claims throws back a 404 message. Were you able to look at it? Normally newcomer composer awards are not taken into account for notability as per WP:COMPOSER Dom from Paris (talk) 18:19, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral tending slightly towards delete. Apologies for the lame recommendation - the reason for it, and why I am commenting at all, will become apparent. This article originally came to the nominator's attention when I alerted administrators to the undisclosed paid editing which I saw taking place - details of which are at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Undisclosed paid editing at Kavita Shah. As the article has been nominated for deletion because of that, I feel obliged to comment. Not only was the article recently expanded by the subject's own staff in a not-entirely neutral way, it appears that was also created in the first place by an editor with a similar COI, having been done by an SPI named Kavitamusic. At the very least that makes it hard to make any judgement on the notability of the subject from the article content alone; my view from independent research is that the subject probably does meet notability guidelines but as the genre is not my scene I do not feel well qualified to offer an assessment. However, the real question I have is whether the COI editing warrants blowing it up and starting over and, with no disrespect to the uninvolved editors who have also contributed, it probably is. I would wholeheartedly recommend delete-and-create-stub if I thought it would achieve anything, but the liklihood is the same paid editors would come back and place the same content anyway. So, in practice, cleaning it up and keeping an eye on it is probably all that can be done. I do recommend that if it is kept it is pared back to only the content which is or can be referenced and that what remains is reviewed for impartiality. Dorsetonian (talk) 18:01, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete Keep (see my comments below) this may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. She doesn't quite scrape through #5 WP:MUSICBIO with just 1 album [1] on Naïve Records and as a composer she is not shown to have filled #4 of WP:COMPOSER as the prize is a newcomers prize which is excluded. As a singer there are claims of having performed at prestigous venues but when you scratch away they seem to have been as part of an emerging artists season notably at Vermont [2]. The coverage is too weak to pass GNG. There seems to be only 1 in-depth source that is really a puff piece/interview mix. The other 2 that are 404 links seem to be an events page to back up a claim to having played at a particular venue and a report on having been one of the winners of the newcomers prize. There are no reviews of her performances or recordings. For me it's not quite enough. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:29, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy delete: I don't know why you didn't see about page creator user name. That name was for promotion but don't worried about this. I reported at UAA. And this article must to delete per WP:G5. Also, I don't see any reliable source about this artist. This AfD will be close soon. Thank you, Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 05:54, 26 May 2018 (UTC) (moved to keep)[reply]

Note: I have removed the G5 speedy deletion tag from the article because the user was not blocked or banned at the time they created it. Despite the username the article was created via WP:AFC - but as the nominator said, "I've no idea as to how this was accepted at AfC". Dorsetonian (talk) 06:53, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dorsetonian: Well, but this article needs to delete because there is no significant source about this person. WP:NMUSIC fails. She had just done two album. Is this enough for WP:BLP article? - Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 07:59, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

COI editing as such is not a reason for deletion and neither is autobiographical editing. What is a motif is undeclared paid editing which this is not. The article went through AFC and was cleaned up by some very experienced editors and was accepted as a draft submission by an administrator who has since retired I believe. The article is a borderline case which IMHO doesn't quite make the grade but I don't believe it needs blowing up as it is not excessively promotional. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:21, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Hi Dom from Paris :), no. I put the keep based on the WP:GNG standard, which superseeds WP:NMUSIC. Two albums out in the UK, seem to be one out in France, but she is notable. And there seems to be third album in the work as a Duo. scope_creep (talk) 13:53, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks for making that clear. I'm not sure the sources are enough to pass GNG there seems to only be 1 in-depth source and GNG requires multiple sources. The all about jazz is a press release about a performance by the subject. For me it's too weak. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:48, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yip, could be because Jazz and Blues are not as popular as they used to be, although there was a resurgance in Jazz about 10 year ago. That could be the reason that there not much coverage. But I think that three albums means she is an established artist and means she is notable. scope_creep (talk) 11:20, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are the albums on major labels or notable independent labels? Dom from Paris (talk) 12:04, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't tell you unfortunately. But two different countries on two labels would indicate a sustained career. Third album as a duet. I don't see anything that is not good here, and it may be WP:TOOSOON, but two albums completed so quickly indicate talent. scope_creep (talk) 23:19, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if I'm misunderstanding your reasoning but it appears that there is nothing based on WP policy in the argument being advanced. We're not here to decide whether the subject is talented enough for an article, or even notable according to some standard we devise ourselves; the criteria for inclusion are laid down for us and I'm pretty sure that neither being talented or having released albums on any label (no matter how many or how quickly) are accepted indicators of notability. Both of those things may indirectly lead to indicators of notability, such as awards or news coverage - but then, some awards and news coverage qualify and some don't, and we would still need to identify them here in order to make a convincing argument. Dorsetonian (talk) 09:45, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Innisfree987 (talk) 04:21, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is the exactly reason we are here. If somebody doesn't have some facet of the psyche that makes them stand out from the crowd, then they we woudn't have WP:BIO articles on here. Talent and creativity are the two primary drivers for the advancement of mankind. And the primary driver for this encyclopedia. Both are prerequisites for notability. Note to Closing Admin Please leave the Afd open, until I can comment further, on Monday. scope_creep (talk) 09:37, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I was sceptical initially, but there's actually quite a lot of coverage out there now. Both of her albums as leader/co-leader were reviewed by DownBeat (I've added the second one to the article). More generally, there are two reviews in The New York Times [3] [4], a review in the Ottawa Citizen [5] and in PopMatters [6]. There's good biographical coverage at Harvard magazine [7] and Berkeleyside [8]. There's also stuff in French on her tour there (maybe someone else can judge how good these and others are [9] [10]). There's also a WNPR piece [11], although that looks largely promotional, so might be best avoided. Including more from the other sources mentioned would be enough for WP:MUSICBIO notability criteria 1 and 4. EddieHugh (talk) 11:15, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Both French sources are more than enough on their own. Jazz magazine and Télérama are very reliable sources. I'm changing my !vote to keep following the above sources. Dom from Paris (talk) 21:12, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:21, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this notable singer and songwriter. gidonb (talk) 21:04, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't think I need to comment. I created a large half page rationale, but I dont think wee need it. scope_creep (talk) 11:03, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - quite a few of the sources suggested by Eddie Hugh are too focused on the actual album/song etc and fail to cover the actual subject, however there are certainly sufficient that do and thus this is a clear keep. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:53, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the present circumstances. Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 14:34, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

/noinclude> ·

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.