Talk:MC Kash

File:Kashmiri Rapper McKash.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Kashmiri Rapper McKash.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:05, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I propose that the article on the song I Protest be merged her, given that article is but one line. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:56, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support per the text, context, and overlap Wikipedia:Merging#Reasons_for_merger. --DBigXray 15:02, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support As per the AfD, the song is notable. However due to failed verification issues, currently I am in support to the merge. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 15:00, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Support - The song is WP:N but it clearly fails WP:NSONG. And the policy, NSONG states that such songs are to be merged with the article of the artist. Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. →TSU ^tp* 04:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC) Moved to oppose  — TheSpecialUser ^(TSU) 17:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
• Strong oppose: as apparent in the history, the article is not just about this song but also the protests, and they will be added to the article soon. A merger will not make sense. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:16, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• As per the AfD, it is crystal clear that the protests has nothing to do with the article. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 11:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

AFD does not state that the scope of the article is limited. All details are in the scope of the article. See the discussion on article talk. This merge request is as such hindering that discussion. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Open a RfC if you are so confident. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 11:27, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• Strong Support: I agree that the protests themselves are notable and deserve an article (which is already there: 2010 Kashmir unrest: I presume given the comments of User:TopGun above about improving this article to include information about the protests that he might have missed the article about the protest themselves). The song, itself, though does not appear to be any more notable than the other work of MC Kash (at least in the sources listed). Thus, it would be ridiculous to have an article with has the title of a song, but which is supposed to be about the protests. In my opinion, such a move would just give undue importance to the song (since much that can be written about it would have to be duplicated from the article on MC Kash), and, also much more importantly, will not give due importance to the protests themselves. Also, since the protests themselves already have an article at 2010 Kashmir unrest, it would be much more productive to improve that article rather than duplicate the same material in three articles. Piyush (talk) 10:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Nopes, I'm not mistaken... you should take a look at the article's history to know what I was talking abuot. Anyway, take a look at the article now. It's expanded and not looking a bit suitable for merger. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, as I said, even after the expansion, there is a lot of duplication with the MC Kash article right now (which seems to be mostly about this and other songs from the same album anyway). I don't understand the reason for keeping multiple fragmented articles with little difference in content. It would be more productive (and in my opinion lead to a more readable articles) to have the information in one article (since the notability of the song and MC Kash) seem to be so intimately tied anyway). Piyush (talk) 18:55, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

To give an example of what I am talking about, the article currently says in the lede:

The studio where the song was recorded was raided after the song was released[3] and the staff was questioned about involvement of any separatist leader.

citing it to the BBC(here), which is actually not talking about the song, but about MC Kash in general, as quoted below (emphasis mine):

For the moment, MC Kash's recording has ground to a total halt. A few weeks ago his studio was raided by police who wanted to know if there was a separatist or militant backing him. '

So as you can see, the source makes a general statement about MC Kash, while the article in its current expanded form tortures it into an statement about one specific song. What the article does say is that the I Protest was the the song that brought him to notice, and then goes on to describe his style, his difficulties, and his profile. As all of this is already described in the MC Kash article, it seems to me still that it would be more productive that any changes are made to the MC Kash article. This would avoid the misrepresentation (which, I should hasten to add, I believe to be completely unintentional) of sources like the one I quoted above, and give us better quality articles about MC Kash and 2010 Kashmir unrest rather than three fragmented low-quality articles with a lot of duplication of content among them. As the cliched but still relevant saying goes, less can be more. Piyush (talk) 19:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I felt that I should post a summary of my suggestions above: 1) I contend that most of the material added to the I protest article will mesh in better in the MC Kash article. This is mostly because the sources quoted talk more about MC Kash than about a song. 2) The article on MC Kash already derives much of its notability from this and two other similar songs, and what happened to him in its aftermath. Thus, it would be much better to keep all the information in one good article (I don't care much if it is called I protest or MC Kash), possibly with a redirect to the other, rather than having two mediocre articles with a lot of duplication of information across them. Right now, all the sources added to the I Protest article would be better used in the MC Kash article, for example. Piyush (talk) 19:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Article has been expanded, with referencing. That automatically disqualifies the rationale provided for the merger proposal, and many of the !votes above. Mar4d (talk) 14:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose No more a single line stub. The song and the biography articles are on two different subjects and have independent notability (the songs notability was already proved by discussion at the AfD), verifiable by multiple sources. If anyone had searched for sources, we would not be debating this issue. There are still many more sources out there, so I will request all, try to help the encyclopedia by expanding both the articles. --SMS ^Talk 19:55, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - My issues are addressed. No need for a merge anymore.  — TheSpecialUser ^(TSU) 17:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Citation

Were any attempts made to find sources to verify the content before this blanket removal that, by the way, was suspiciously made after I made an edit to the page? Mar4d (talk) 20:08, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Do not restore unsourced content to a BLP again. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on MC Kash. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140313014309/http://www.mckashofficial.com/bio to https://www.mckashofficial.com/bio

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:22, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on MC Kash. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160201142201/http://edition.presstv.ir/detail/156185.html to http://edition.presstv.ir/detail/156185.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:16, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on MC Kash. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141023093302/https://www.mckashofficial.com/bio to http://www.mckashofficial.com/bio

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:29, 10 January 2018 (UTC)