Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gaana.com

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 no consensus. WP:NPASR. Der yck C. 22:25, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gaana.com[edit]

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

Doubtful notability failing WP:GNG. Article fully based on non-RS refs and being part of the The Times Group, all the publications of this group can't be used to establish any notability of this website. Created by puppet User:BigJolly9 in 2013 while their master User:Mushroom9 had been blocked since 2012. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:17, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:18, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:18, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now perhaps as I found several mentions at Books, News, Highbeam and browsers so far but perhaps nothing for outstandingly better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:59, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on sources found likely meets notability criteria. AusLondonder (talk) 23:54, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:53, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot seem to find coverage that suggests this deserves a standalone article; the parent group is very much notable, but there doesn't seem to be a good reason why this deserves its own page. Also, Dharmadhyaksha, since this was created by a sock of a user who was indeffed for socking, and was created after the indef, it counts as block evasion and is therefore eligible for WP:CSD#G5; am I wrong? Karellen93 (talk) 00:39, 31 December 2015 (UTC) Note: this is a [[WP:VALIDALT|legitimate alternative account of Vanamonde93.[reply]
Keep Seems like a popular app, even it's TV commercial campaigns are discussed (http://www.campaignindia.in/Video/396676,gaana-continues-with-ayaan-and-rheas-love-story-in-a-metro.aspx, http://www.bestmediainfo.com/2015/06/gaana-com-unveils-a-new-love-story-in-its-episodic-musical-ad-campaign/). The article itself lists several references.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:49, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article lists only one RS & independent source. (Indian Express talking of Micromax & Gaana.) Rest are all either non-RS or non-independent. The two you cite are also not RS. We are dealing with a product of a huge publishing house that probably has ties on various levels. We hence need to be careful on not making WP a means of promotion. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:43, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG it is one of the leading music sites in India . Financial Express belonging to the Indian Express states The digital music landscape is currently dominated by three players — Times Internet’s Gaana.com, Bharti Airtel’s Wynk and a lesser-known Saavn run by an NRI Vinod Bhatia — but it’s the fight for leadership between the the first two which is set to take the industry by storm. ,Hindustan Times states Gaana, one of the leading India music streaming services owned by Times Internet. .Here this. It is ranked 1,684 in the world and 124th in India by this Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:59, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note WP:CSD#G5 was contested here by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz.Fully agree with this Now G5 would only apply if there was no substantial contributions by others users.Here there has a been a lot of editing and the indef blocked user last edited on 30th April 2014 and over 45 edits have been made by other users after that hence G5 would not apply here.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:19, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:34, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:02, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:58, 12 January 2016 (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.