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. Cirt (talk) 02:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baba Sehgal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

No reliable sources found to verify notability. Prod declined. —  X  S  G  05:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Google Books [1], News Archive [2] and even Scholar [3] searches show obvious notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 05:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The references you've pointed to appear dubious at best, with respect to "reliability". Perhaps adding them to the article will put them more into context? Otherwise, I'm going to have to go with a delete... —  X  S  G  05:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Are you saying that The Times of India, The Hindu, The Indian Express, The Hindustan Times, The Los Angeles Times etc. are not reliable sources? Or academic books published by Routledge, Taylor & Francis, SAGE and Blackwell? Or that, for a rapper, the All Music Guide to Hip-hop isn't a reliable source? There are so many reliable sources found by the searches I linked to above that it would take longer the the lifetime of this AfD discussion for me to go through them and sort out which ones to put in the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - No, I'm saying I didn't see those reliable sources and they didn't appear in the article. —  X  S  G  16:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I don't quite see how you managed to miss those sources when you looked at the Google links I provided: they're right there on the first page of results in each case. But, anyway, thanks for changing your !vote. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, appears to be sourced to a WP mirror. Stifle (talk) 11:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC) Keep as improved. Stifle (talk) 15:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The note at the bottom of the article explains its origin (but not its sourcing) as another GFDL compliant Wiki. I've added some references which I hope make notability crystal clear for those who couldn't see it by looking at the searches that I linked above. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Correction. OK, I see that this was copied from a Wikipedia mirror, but it doesn't detract from the fact that this article was sourceable (and is now sourced) to many reliable book and newspaper sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Per the excellent sourcing work recently performed by Phil Bridger. Kudo, Phil! —  X  S  G  16:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I had nominated the article for undeletion last month. But only a few revisions have been restored. I have asked the admin User:Chick Bowen for a complete restoration dating back to 2005. By the way, what is "Prod"? Jay (talk) 07:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply. "Prod" is the proposed deletion procedure for deleting articles without discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Copyright question. Is there any evidence that the smashits version predates the crazefm version? If not, then the smashits article is a copyright violation and ours is too. Chick Bowen 15:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply. The Smash Hits version says that it is a copy from Wikipedia, presumably from one of the previously deleted versions, not vice-versa. I'm sure you'll find that the CrazeFM version is also a copy from Wikipedia. This could be clarified if the complete history was restored as suggested by Jay. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• The wording "(citation = his website (see external links))" makes the CrazeFM version look very much like a copy from Wikipedia, as it doesn't make sense in the CrazeFM profile but would in a Wikipedia article. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I agree that the "external links reference" suggests a copy from Wikipedia (in which case it's a GFDL violation for them, of course, but that's a different matter). I've restored the complete history. Chick Bowen 17:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - He is a well known rapper in India. I think the question is no longer on the notability but on the quality of the article. We should fix the article and not delete it. --Anshuk (talk) 07:39, 10 October 2008 (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.