| abstract
| - Procedural nomination based on an OTRS request. The subject has identified privacy concerns with the article and, given their borderline notability, they would like to have the article deleted. Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
* Delete I reviewed some of the earlier versions of the article as well and notability is borderline at best. EEng (talk) 19:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 1 June 2012 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
* Keep Wikipedia's music notability guideline states that the following grants notability: "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself." Based on the current references, Kary Arora clearly meets that standard, since the three references are independent sources (major Indian newspapers), and their coverage of her background and performance is substantial. NJ Wine (talk) 20:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC) The three sources in the article are puff pieces consisting largely of quotations from the subject and narrative material clearly supplied by the subject. Published within a month of one another, they are -- typical courtesy coverage of a new young artist. Statements like "rated one of the top DJs" are meaningless when there's no indication of by whom. EEng (talk) 23:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC) EEng, the three article were published in three different years -- 2004, 2005, and 2012. I think you may have been looking at the retrieved dates, not the publication dates. Additionally I found a new article about her from 2000 where she has an interview with a financial newspaper. She is clearly notable. NJ Wine (talk) 03:15, 2 June 2012 (UTC) Yup, I was looking at the retrieval dates, must... get... more... sleep. This negates my unimportant idea that there was a recent publicity campaign, but the rest of my comments still apply. This coverage is completely superficial. Notability-supporting references need to be independent of the subject; in particular, interviews cannot be independent and so cannot count towards notability. Of the three references in the article and the one you give above, all are either interviews or four-paragraph puff pieces. All are obviously just rehashes of material supplied by the subject -- nothing critical or from third parties whatsover. The claim that, "For two years, she was ranked among Delhi's `Top Five DJs'" -- without bothering to mention who did the ranking -- only makes it clear how meaningless all this hype is. EEng (talk) 05:22, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
* Keep - The topic passes WP:GNG and WP:BASIC:
* Yadav, Shivangi(5 January 2004).We will, we will rock you. The Times of India.
* Prince Frederick(21 March 2005)."Carry on, Kary".The Hindu. .
* Mahaldar, Puja Raina(26 January 2012).Six women who know how to get the party started. India Today. Simply comply with the individual's privacy requests (if any have been stated) at WP:OTRS, whatever they may be (e.g. omit birthdate, if that's been requested, etc.) Outright deletion doesn't make sense, because publicly-known figures cannot request that mass media stop reporting about them with an expectation that this would actually occur; why should Wikipedia be any different? Northamerica1000(talk) 00:30, 5 June 2012 (UTC) These are the same three sources I discussed above. Can you respond to my claim that they are inadquate? EEng (talk) 00:51, 5 June 2012 (UTC) (edit conflict)::The request is to have the article removed completed, which is why it was nominated for deletion. Given that your first reference is from 8 years ago, the second is from 6 years ago and the third is a minor profile mentioning her "biggest gig" was a private party over three years ago, it's not an enormous leap to consider that some editors may conclude that the subject's request to have their article removed overrides a minor blip on the notability screen. WP:N is only a guideline after all and WP:IAR exists for a reason. Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 01:15, 5 June 2012 (UTC) I had completely forgotten that the subject herself has requested deketion, for apparently understandable reasons. Of course, we don't delete articles just because the subject wants us to. Some time back a Pakistani general demanded deletion because he disliked seeing the truth about himself laid out in print. That ended in keep, of course. But this is a far cry from that situation. EEng (talk) 09:21, 5 June 2012 (UTC) There is also this article about her from 12 years ago. There are multiple non-trivial articles about her from independent sources, so she is notable. I'm sympathetic to a privacy request when someone is thrust into the spotlight against their will (e.g., a crime victim), However, Kary Arora chose to be a public figure, and I don't see the article, at least as currently written, as being that invasive of her privacy. NJ Wine (talk) 02:19, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
* Keep - clearly meets notability requirements over a period of years. While we should be sensitive to BLP concerns, the current article has a NPOV and does not appear to have negative information. GregJackP Boomer! 02:09, 9 June 2012 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 9 June 2012 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 08:20, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
|
![[RDF Data]](/fct/images/sw-rdf-blue.png)