Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celina Sharma

Celina Sharma

Celina Sharma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Subject does not meet WP:GNG and WP:NMUSICIAN. Sources are promotional, being interviews and PR articles. Source analysis:

• Source 1 - Clash - is an interview.
• Source 2 - Bong Mines Entertainment is a paid/promotional site
• Source 3 - Hindustan Times is trivial coverage of her reaction to criticism and gives no indication on subject's notability
• Source 4 - Tone Deaf - is again an interview and with no WP:SIGCOV.
• Source 5 - BBC Media Centre - Trivial One-word mention of the subject

The article is a PROMO with no indication of the subject's notability as a musician. Does not satisfy any criteria of WP:NMUSICIAN. Retro music11 (talk) 15:58, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Women, Music, India, United Kingdom, and Australia. Retro music11 (talk) 15:58, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delete Fails in GNG as well as WP:NMUSICIAN. In addditional searches, all I could find are interviews. The ones which are not, are just TRIVIAL mentions. BhikhariInformer (talk) 16:10, 5 April 2026 (UTC
• Will come back to this but leaning keep as it likely passes WP:BASIC, which trumps WP:NMUSICIAN. Also see there is no mention of a WP:BEFORE search. Cielquiparle (talk) 19:37, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

  You're the article creator. I understand that you'll lean towards a keep.

  However, since you've created this one, you'll know that out of the 5 sources, 3 are interviews and do not add to WP:GNG. Source 2 - Bong Mines Entertainement is a Paid website, lacking journalistic coverage and cannot be used to verify claims. Source 5 - BBC Media Centre - a one-word mention about the subject and nothing to establish notability. With 3 Interviews, 1 TRIVIAL Mention, 1 PAID Website (used thrice as reference) and No WP:RS, how does this subject pass WP:NBASIC?

  Article has been created based on sources that are WP:CHURNALISM . There's no WP:RS to establish a WP:GNG pass. A WP:BEFORE has been considered. There's nothing more that can be fixed via normal editing. There were some vague claims supported by non-reliable sources which I fixed. In fact, there are some more.

  Current sources don't even give a WP:V. Look at the nature of those sources - It's basically the subject talking about herself in those sources, and those sources are being used for a BLP that serves as a PROMO for the subject. Retro music11 (talk) 20:52, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

  If a WP:BEFORE search has been considered, you should stay where you looked: Which search engines? Which country codes and languages? Any other databases in Wikipedia Library? Cielquiparle (talk) 23:49, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

  You're the article creator and this BLP included a claim stating "her single "We Are One" was the India national cricket team's anthem in the Cricket World Cup", which is a WP:SYNTH. Which search engines? Which country codes and languages? Any other databases in Wikipedia Library? did you look at before adding the claim to Wikipedia. Additionally, my previous question remains unanswered- How does the subject pass WP:NBASIC and WP:NMUSICIAN with interviews and WP:CHURNALISM not amounting to WP:SIGCOV.

  I considered a WP:BEFORE, only to find more advertorials that don't add to the subject's notability. Retro music11 (talk) 01:51, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. Trumpetrep (talk) 01:55, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Also, @Cielquiparle Since you're the only contributor to this article, I want to bring to your notice that you had added a claim that "her single "We Are One" was the India national cricket team's anthem in the Cricket World Cup" - this claim was supported by a paid website Bong Mines Entertainment. This claim cannot be validated elsewhere, not even on the Cricket World Cup Official website. I've removed it for or now, at least till a valid source can be found. Owing to a lack of WP:RS, I suspected that to be WP:SYNTH. The reason I'm critical about paid media is that there's a strong possibility of BLPs ending up in WP:HOAX. Retro music11 (talk) 21:17, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

• Requesting User:CNMall41 to please help this discussion with an accurate source analysis/ Or please cross examine the source analysis that I've made in the nomination. Thanks. Retro music11 (talk) 21:30, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

  Canvassing is not allowed at AfD! WP:CANVASSING If you do post a notice it should be in public WikiProject Talk pages that are open to more people, not just people you think will agree with you. Cielquiparle (talk) 23:51, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

  How is source analysis provided by an independent/ uninvolved editor who is an active participant at AFDs WP:CANVASSING ? In fact, I've requested a cross -examination of the analysis that I've provided earlier. What makes you think that this contributor will agree with me? Having said that, source analysis by any independent editor other than the creator of the article is welcomed. Retro music11 (talk) 01:35, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

• Comment. I forgot I had even created this article and am not that attached to it. But I do reject blanket statements like "interviews don't count". In general I would agree that Q&A interviews where almost all of the text is word-for-word quoting the subject usually doesn't count toward notability. But feature articles where the subject is quoted can count toward WP:BASIC or even WP:GNG if they include objective assessment by a journalist who is independent of the subject. I do think the "We Are One" claim is strange but I think I must have found the claim somewhere else and was looking for a source for it and somehow backed into this article. Cielquiparle (talk) 23:14, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

  I'll refrain from commenting on whether you forgot about creating this article. All I can conclude is that the article was hastily created and bypassed the standard AFC process. Other editors thereby could not verify whether the article meets WP:GNG, WP:N and whether the subject passes WP:NMUSICIAN. I'm glad at least we can discuss it now, at this stage if not earlier, unfortunately. I don't dispute your recommended course of action, as it's obvious that being the creator, you'll lean towards a keep. It has also come to my attention that when you created the article, you added that she was of English, Maltese, Indian and some other heritage. But now that has been re-written to South-Asian heritage. That was another WP:SYTH that I was suspecting. However, sorted as of now till further source analysis.

  Feature articles counting towards WP:GNG is also a blanket statement, especially when the nature/ content of the article is TRIVIAL/ADVERTORIAL/OR PAID. And interviews are not-independent of the subject. In this case, interviews is all that we have for fact-checking. I see that you've re-written the article now. I hope an uninvolved independent contributor will aid this discussion in a neutral source analysis. Retro music11 (talk) 02:02, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

  Improving the article at AfD is allowed and encouraged per WP:HEY. I have removed a couple of sources and claims you flagged as problematic. Please remember to assume good faith per WP:AGF. Cielquiparle (talk) 03:07, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

  Even with those new sources added, the subject does not pass a single criteria of WP:NMUSICIAN. The article serves as a PROMO for the subject, a musician. I fail to understand, how it add's to encyclopaedic value.

  Please also remember to WP:AGF and wait for a source analysis from an uninvolved editor without a COI. Retro music11 (talk) 09:30, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

• Source analysis by nominator, following newly added sources by the article creator, who's also the sole contributor to adding information on this BLP:

1. 1 - Interview (subject talking about herself) and the source is cited 5 times for fact-checking
2. 2 - Interview / PR
3. 3 - TRIVIAL mention about the subject not amounting to WP:SIGCOV. Article is about Celebrity singing coach David Jaanz
4. 4 - Unbylined Media Release - TRIVIAL mention about the subject joining a new talent agency in 2024
5. 5 - Non WP:RS - A Private Limited Company Tabloid
6. 6 - Trivia - ONE-WORD mention about the subject, not adding to WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV
7. 7 - Clash - Bylined release announcement
8. 8 - WP:NEWSORGINDIA - Her reaction to criticism. Nothing to indicate notability or a WP:MUSICIAN pass
9. 9 - TRIVIAL mention, can be use to confirm that her release exists. No WP:SIGCOV or notability indicated.
10. 10 - Vevo Streaming Link
11. 11 - About her label and nothing in-depth about the subject.

The only reliable source available is Source #7 Clash - an announcement about her release. However, a single WP:RS isn't enough for WP:GNG. Regardless of the number of sources involved, their nature/content should be taken into consideration, none of which indicate that the subject passes WP:NMUSICIAN. And we're not a platform for PROMO. Having said that, I've requested independent source analysis from interested editors since the beginning of this discussion. Note to closing administrator : The keep comes from the article creator. Retro music11 (talk) 10:39, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

• Keep meets WP:MUSICBIO#3 with a platinum record confirmed by this reliable source. The subject also has charted several times in both the UK and New Zealand, both nationally and in specialty charts, and all compliant with WP:SUITCHARTS. I have not done a full review of the further sources, but a quick look does indicate some usable coverage from which can be used. ResonantDis_tortion 19:28, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

The guideline states musicians "may" be notable if they have a platinum record or chart. Notability is not inherent for these. Stating it "does indicate" is fine until it is at AfD. Can you show the significant coverage (bylined, non-churnalism) supporting the claim of notability?--CNMall41 (talk) 19:39, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

@ResonantDistortion You've added unsourced information on the article page that her single titled "Use Me" charted at 13. Where did you get this data from? Since this data is devoid a WP:RS, I'm considering it a WP:SYNTH or even a WP:HOAX as of now. Your keep is solely based on those chart positions, ignoring that the benchmark for notability is WP:GNG which needs SIGCOV in sources independent of the subject. You've also stated that you have not yet reviewed the sources. Then why do you lean towards keep, without source analysis?

I also want to add to this discussion that, while this article was created, and just before nominating it for deletion, there was another False claim that "Her EP went viral, with over 5 billion views on TikTok and 300 million organic streams". Similarly, even that couldn't be verified elsewhere on certified databases. However, it was added anyway to a BLP. Retro music11 (talk) 20:56, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

@CNMall41 There's no official database source till now to confirm the platinum sales. @ResonantDistortion Clash and articles aren't official databases for record certifications. Perhaps such and similarly conclusions on this particularly page have been coming from self-aligned interviews. Inspite of earlier proved concerns of WP:SYNTH, why are we still not looking at reliable sources to confirm those claims? Retro music11 (talk) 21:09, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

My comment was for ResonantDistortion. You have replied multiple times after someone comments or votes. I would recommend stepping away and letting the discussion run. Your contention has been made and adding to it with walls of texts is not going to help it. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:09, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

• Comment The nominator, @Retro music11, in this diff, has removed content fully cited to the reliable sources Music Week, Clash (magazine), and the Official Charts Company. For the record, the sources are , , and . @Retro music11, can you please confirm if you have a WP:COI on this subject? ResonantDis_tortion 22:21, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

  Don't mislead the discussion. I've adressed you on the talk page, I've left an editing summary as well, still you chose to selectively skip that. You've not replied to me there but chose to place false allegations on me. Retro music11 (talk) 22:30, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

  @ResonantDistortion Regarding COI, absolutely not because I did not add an unsourced claim like you did, you added "Her single "Use Me" charted at 13." Why did you add this? Did you have a COI while adding this claim? Retro music11 (talk) 22:33, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you kindly for confirming. If you looked at the citations I added, and also listed above, you will clearly see why I added "Use Me". I will now provide the link again: . ResonantDis_tortion 22:47, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

  And again, your provided link does not show "Use Me". Please tell us where did you get that information from? Retro music11 (talk) 23:12, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

  "Use Me" is clearly listed under the heading "Official British Asian Music Chart", with a peak position of #13. If you need guidance on how to use the Official Charts Company database correctly, please let me know. I am reinserting "killer", "Use Me", and the double platinum single; all verified by reliable sources. I have also identified and added further charting per . Please cease removing cited content to enable as good assessment of the subject as possible. ResonantDis_tortion 07:03, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

• Providing clarification to [User:ResonantDistortion|ResonantDistortion]] allegation - Since this article has been nominated, I the nominator, Retro music11 has removed the following claims for reasons as below. Every editor on this discussion can have a look:

1. 1 - "her single "We Are One" was the India national cricket team's anthem in the Cricket World Cup" - Reason: FALSE CLAIM WP:HOAX
2. 2 - The EP went viral, with over 5 billion views on TikTok and 300 million organic streams - Reason: FALSE CLAIM WP:HOAX
3. 3 - "Use Me" charted at 13 added by ResonantDistortion- I removed this because it was unsourced - Reason: UNSOURCED CLAIM
4. 4 - She is platinum-certified argued by ResonantDistortion- : Reason Claim cannot be verified on official databases and even though Clash is a WP:RS, it's not a sales certifying authority
5. 5 - Paid press release - Reason Non-WP:RS
6. 6- Sources that don't talk about the subject/ Or sources that are reliable but irrelevant to verify claims for this subject or mention claims about some other subject
7. 7 - Someone else's discography added as main release for this subject by and source cited at that time mentioned her as an aid.

And ResonantDistortion is now questioning whether I have a COI. Does that imply ResonantDistortion had a COI while adding some of the above (3.4,7)? And did ResonantDistortion have a COI while voting - Keep and also at the same time stating "But I've not gone through the sources". I never alleged that they had a COI but this just goes to show where some of the WP:SYNTH in this article is coming from. The contributions lack explanation but the intention of the one who rectifies the error is at question. And ResonantDistortion still has the courtesy to question my intent. Retro music11 (talk) 22:57, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

I would strongly advise the nominator to read WP:BLUDGEON. Cielquiparle (talk) 15:19, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete Clearly fails SIGCOV and GNG. Just a pack of lies and misinformation to make this person appear notable. SamBordoloi (talk) 10:53, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

  Not quite - there are reliable sources verifying the subject meets both WP:MUSICBIO criteria #2 and #3. ResonantDis_tortion 12:20, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

  Hi, you have admitted above of not doing a full review of the sources. Please be assured that I have done this job sincerely. Based on guidelines, this person fails WP:SIGCOV and GNG. Based on paid media and interviews, anybody can become notable. SamBordoloi (talk) 09:05, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

• Keep per and keep improving. Easily meets WP:BASIC which is the bare minimum for biographies and arguably also meets WP:GNG. There is significant coverage in CLASH magazine: two articles including an article about Celina Sharma's collaboration with Stonebwoy and Ivorian Doll on "Lights Down", as well as a feature article (even if part of the article is a Q&A interview, which doesn't count toward notability, the introduction includes 6 paragraphs written in the journalist's own voice). There is also an article in Hindustan Times about Celina Sharma's song in the Marvel film The Eternals, which balances both the criticism of the song by fans for "not being Bollywood enough" as well as Sharma's defense of the song. Coverage in reliable sources per Cite Unseen spans 2020 to 2023, including the early recognition by the BBC Asian Network Future Sounds list and the music chart lists of her singles (on Official Charts and Aotearoa Music Charts), showing WP:SUSTAINED interest in the artist's music during this period. Cielquiparle (talk) 16:53, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
• Comment - In view of the above keep made by Cielquiparle, who's also the Article creator and after taking into consideration the improvements they've made thereafter, below is the source assessment table including the newly added sources :

More information Source, Independent? ...

Source assessment table prepared by User:Retro music11

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.clashmusic.com/features/in-conversation-celina-sharma/	Interview/Q&A (Used 5 times for validating claims on this article	statements made by the subject, fails verification	interview	✘ No
https://themusic.com.au/features/meet-celina-sharma-a-rising-star-teasing-her-debut-ep-with-a-new-single-her-wrongs/BR27GRgbGh0/05-07-21	Interview	Statements not independent of the subject, cannot be used for fact-checking	promotional interview	✘ No
https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/newslocal/north-shore/celebrity-singing-coach-david-jaanz-searching-for-budding-the-voice-and-x-factor-stars-at-new-sydney-studio/news-story/835af9a3bec979991e395a58c6b3b908	Statements made by the subject's coach, not a journalistic coverage which is entirely independent of the subject		Trivial mention, the article's main subject is Vocal Coach David Jaanz	✘ No
https://indiantelevision.com/mam/dharma-cornerstone-agencys-music-division-onboards-new-talents/	Media release by subject's talent agency		Trivial mentionl	✘ No
https://issuu.com/abpl/docs/av_27th_july_2024			contributor must clarify which page	✘ No
https://www.bbc.com/mediacentre/latestnews/2020-asian-network-future-sounds	not related to the subject, mentions 10 emerging artist, and this subject isn't one among them			✘ No
https://www.clashmusic.com/news/celina-sharma-stonebwoy-ivorian-doll-team-up-on-lights-down/	upcoming release promotion, mentioning check out their dazzling video		announcent about subject's release	✘ No
https://www.hindustantimes.com/entertainment/music/eternals-singer-celina-sharma-reacts-to-criticism-against-nach-mera-hero-says-it-s-a-hollywood-movie-101636194331533.html	article on subject's reaction	Likely WP:NEWSORGINDIA		✘ No
https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?p=ITOF&u=wikipedia&id=GALE%7CA766790729&v=2.1&it=r&sid=bookmark-ITOF&asid=fa757880			3 sentences	✘ No
https://www.theguardian.com/music/2023/sep/25/were-asked-are-your-parents-ok-with-it-girls-like-you-on-trying-to-be-the-first-big-british-asian-girl-band	article about British Asian Girl Band		1 word, literally 'One Word Mention' about the subject, why is this even added as a source?	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Close

And regarding this subject being platinum certified, there's still No official record available. here's a link to the database https://www.riaa.com/gold-platinum/?tab_active=default-award&se=Celina+Sharma#search_section with 'Result Not Found'. Retro music11 (talk) 18:28, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

• Keep Clearly meets SNG with 8 songs that charted and a platinum certification (for which we have RS). The source analysis above is unreasonably harsh, because it dismisses independent parts of the coverage that are included prior to the interviews. Kelob2678 (talk) 20:16, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To see if input from additional editors can help establish a consensus. For those who already participated, you've said a lot.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 22:59, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

• Keep based on what's available, and assuming good faith that the songs did "chart". Bearian (talk) 21:44, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

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.