This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music articles
This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because..The article subject has coverage across numerous sources and crosses the threshold of notability --WordSeventeen (talk) 15:26, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@WordSeventeen: I've declined the speedy deletion nomination because the article makes credible claims of importance, which is the standard applied when applying the WP:CSD A7 criteria. Just for future reference, anyone is able to decline a Speedy Deletion nomination as long as they aren't the author of the article, and the dispute button/option is primarily intended for the article author, though there is nothing wrong with using it. As for the notability of the article, judging just by whats there, and not doing any research on potential for improvement: The article probably does not pass the WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG in its current form. Of the 4 non-youtube sources, 2 are copies of the same press release. One is a short blurb from the Times of India, which is a good source, but is weak due to the very limited depth. The last is a article that goes into decent depth, but is from a blog. Blogs can contribute to notability in some cases, and that one has a staff page, and other indicia of reliability, but its always an uphill battle if you need to argue that a blog is a reliable source for notability purposes. Again, just judging from whats currently there, but it does have a notability issue if more reliable sources that provide substantive coverage aren't added. Monty84503:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
