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The result was Withdrawn by nominator. This replaces the nominator's original closing statement, for the reasons suggested at DRV. If desired, another AfD can be filed in due course, though I am not suggesting it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:54, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hindi songs recorded by Asha Bhosle[edit]

List of Hindi songs recorded by Asha Bhosle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NOT. The singer being notable (or other similar listcruft existing elsewhere) does not change the fact this is obviously song-database listcruft which fails WP:NOTCATALOG and WP:NOTDATABASE - the singer has recorded over 11000 songs; so unless one is willing to WP:TNT this to something that could possibly be manageable, this is obviously failing WP:CSC as well. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:16, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 22:22, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There we go again - another selective nomination which goes along the lines of previous nominations with the same irrelevant rationale of WP:NOT. Blaming the singer for having sung so many songs is just blaming an artist for being too prolific, and suggesting WP should discriminate against them. Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:38, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  another selective nomination Then list other pages so they can be nominated as well, duh. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a convincing argument, particularly when that other stuff similarly fails NOT. Blaming the singer for having sung so many songs is just blaming an artist for being too prolific Nonsense. This isn't "blaming the singer for having sung so many songs"; it's recognising the fact we can't impart any useful, encyclopedic information to readers by providing them with an indiscriminate listing of all of their songs (which in this case span over 8 decades, so really, probably are far closer to the archetypical apples and oranges than anything else even if they're sung by the same singer).. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:57, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @RandomCanadian: I think we've had enough of this arguments on other AfDs. I see no WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS in my vote above and seriously can't understand where you're bringing this from. I should have added though, not only the same irrelevant rationale can be found here but also the same constant WP:BLUDGEONING on the part of the nominator. More than one editor asked you to stop imposing your subjective interpretation on every participant. Enough with this, please. Shahid • ^Talk2me 23:02, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  People making the same bad argument everywhere (your argument is literally "previous nominations with the same irrelevant rationale"; and the again summary dismissal of WP:NOT) don't really have much of a legitimate reason to complain when it gets pointed out. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:55, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @RandomCanadian: I do not dismiss WP:NOT, I dismiss your misrepresentation of it. Sorry but almost nothing of what you say makes sense. If I make the same bad argument it must be because of the same unjusitfied nomination. Other than that, you've been warned to stop bludgeoning the process and you seem to not be able to accept that others disagree with your perspective. Please stop. Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:10, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – A grammy-nominated artist and Guinness-record holder. Her discography is never non-notable or indiscriminate. The referencing might be improved but deleting this is ponitless. She has sung 7,892 Hindi songs among which at least 500 songs are listed with a whopping 44 references. I would request everyone to check those facts about Asha Bhosle and consider my points before sharing any views on this Afd. Thank you everyone. Abbasulu (talk) 00:26, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  She has sung 7,892 Hindi songs among which at least 500 songs are listed with a whopping 44 references. Thanks for making my point for me. It is not possible to cover this in this fashion in an encyclopedically appropriate fashion; not something that can be fixed with "the referencing might be improved". We are not a song database, even if the singer is notable, and particularly if such a "list" would include thousands of entries. Comparing with the existence of other lists, which include far fewer entries than even this in its current state (as is in line with WP:CSC, which specifically states that "complete lists" should only ever be reasonably short, which even this incomplete complete list is not), is at best disingenuous. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:53, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, as with the other duplicative noms, and for the same reasons. The nominator is verging on a WP:POINT violation, and seems to be acting on the theory that if you can't win one argument, you should start ten. In particular, the nom's rationale of WP:INDISCRIMINATE fails: these lists are not indiscriminate, and not only enhance our coverage of the notable parent topic, but also serve to helpfully link these songs to other encyclopedic topics such as the films they were sung in. Further sourcing and scoping work may be needed, but that can be handled through the wiki process; AFD and its toxic zero-sum dynamic are neither needed nor helpful. -- Visviva (talk) 03:53, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:ABF has no place here. These lists being "helpful", is, A) unpersuasive and B) misses the point that it is not the purpose of Wikipedia to be a song database. The real problem is the people who have mode dozens of similar lists to this one. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:48, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per previously discussed AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by Udit Narayan. No change since then in policies and deletion guidelines that may suggest in deletion of this article. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:55, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  How is a nine year old AfD proof of anything? Your argument is essentially stonewalling, which is not valid. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:45, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:02, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note WP:BLUDGEON tracking: RandomCanadian has made 6 7 comments in the thread among 5 participants. Venkat TL (talk) 13:14, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:CANVASS tracking: All of the above have all voted keep with copy pasted comments at most of the AfDs after Shahid left a note at a Wikiproject page. Also, people who keep making the same non-policy based reasons have no right to complain when this gets pointed out. A Wikiproject having a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS that stats-only lists are acceptable is really the cherry on the cake, here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:41, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @RandomCanadian an WP:ANI may be coming if this behavior continues. Venkat TL (talk) 13:55, 16 June 2022 (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.