Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soni Pabla

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. ✗plicit 01:38, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Soni Pabla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Musician who died very young. No references. Was he noteable? Rathfelder (talk) 22:53, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 22:53, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 22:53, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 22:53, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Subject does not pass WP:NMUSIC. ––FormalDude talk 01:11, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unless somebody can significantly improve the article. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have a lot more than just one footnote, but this has been tagged for notability for almost a decade without ever having had any other sources added. To be fair, a person whose career ended 15 years ago might have had media coverage in his own time that wouldn't Google well now, so I'm willing to reconsider this if somebody with access to archived Indian media coverage can improve the article to demonstrate that he would actually pass WP:NMUSIC for something — but we don't keep poorly sourced articles just because it's possible that better sourcing might exist, we keep poorly sourced articles only if and when somebody can definitively prove that better sourcing absolutely does exist. Bearcat (talk) 14:45, 2 November 2021 (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.