The result was no consensus. Stifle ( talk) 17:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC) reply
An article on Bollywood songs. Poorly sourced, disrupts neutrality, and is likely to be useless for all purposes relating to the article's subject. A category exists, I believe, having a list of notable Bollywood songs, and this one has only certain songs, some of which are unnotable too. There is another article for Filmi covering most of the stuff about Indian music, which is not restricted to Bollywood alone. Not only that, I believe this article is used in the Bollywood article in the "See also" section, as well as in a main article in some other section. It has little relevance to the article. X.One SOS 08:09, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
:::Anyway, with the edits I have made, the article is just about suitable now. I have added eight referenced statements and rather than go to the trouble of deleting and recreating, I think this one can be salvaged here and now. With this and more edits, it can serve as a base for a well-referenced article. With change in content, I request dissenting editors to reconsider the deletion, as it would only add more process to its recovery, which I am sure is at least as acceptable an alternative as simple deletion. Struck out since it is considered as CANVASSING. Article in present form copied to user-space in case consensus is to delete.
AshLin (
talk) 17:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
reply
The result was no consensus. Stifle ( talk) 17:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC) reply
An article on Bollywood songs. Poorly sourced, disrupts neutrality, and is likely to be useless for all purposes relating to the article's subject. A category exists, I believe, having a list of notable Bollywood songs, and this one has only certain songs, some of which are unnotable too. There is another article for Filmi covering most of the stuff about Indian music, which is not restricted to Bollywood alone. Not only that, I believe this article is used in the Bollywood article in the "See also" section, as well as in a main article in some other section. It has little relevance to the article. X.One SOS 08:09, 21 January 2012 (UTC) reply
:::Anyway, with the edits I have made, the article is just about suitable now. I have added eight referenced statements and rather than go to the trouble of deleting and recreating, I think this one can be salvaged here and now. With this and more edits, it can serve as a base for a well-referenced article. With change in content, I request dissenting editors to reconsider the deletion, as it would only add more process to its recovery, which I am sure is at least as acceptable an alternative as simple deletion. Struck out since it is considered as CANVASSING. Article in present form copied to user-space in case consensus is to delete.
AshLin (
talk) 17:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
reply