Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rajam Pushpavanam

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. Seems agreement that NMUSIC criteria is satisfied and other potential deletion reasons removed post-rewrite. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 10:56, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rajam Pushpavanam

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Spammy promo article that has a lot of WP:FLOWERY language like great (2x) , famous, much sought after, great success, wore the best, great sacrifice, great woman and so on. Fails WP:NMUSIC. » Shadowowl | talk 13:56, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:22, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:22, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep have copy edited for neutrality and removed the flowery language and promotionalism. I believe she passes WP:NMUSIC criteria 5 of releasing albums on a major record label (Colombia) , and also has a big notability claim of being the first woman music director in South India, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 19:30, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GOLDENRULE. After Atlantic 306 edited, the page isn't flowery anymore. Accesscrawl (talk) 09:10, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added a source, and there is more out there to add, passes GNG/BASIC, as well as MUSICBIO#5 . I don't really know how a short article on a singer who has been dead for almost 27 years is meant to be promotional, this revision was just the common fluff that can be removed by editing, and certainly not a G11 candidate. Accesscrawl is right, after the work done by Atlantic306, we have a much better article. Sam Sailor 13:26, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with the additions and improvements by the previous editors I think this passes the GNG Wolfson5 (talk) 09:26, 1 August 2018 (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.