Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bharatiya Sangeet Vadya


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 19:53, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Bharatiya Sangeet Vadya

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

 kashmiri TALK  19:54, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Fails to comply with notability guidelines for books as the book has not been shown to be a subject of multiple published works that comply with WP:RS.
 * Additionally, the article's creator and main editor has most likely a conflict of interest: User:Ghanonmatta seems to be Ragini Trivedi or a person closely associated with her, judging from contribution history and highly promotional edits:, , , , , etc., etc.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. We're supposed to apply some common sense to our interpretation of guidelines. For an American journal to publish an extensive review of a book in Hindi that doesn't have an English-language translation, and to describe the book as "the most complete, authoritative work ever published on the history of Indian musical instruments", is about as strong a demonstration of notability as you can get. Perceived conflict of interest is, of course, utterly irrelevant to the issue of deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:15, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * These words only mean that the book was notable in 1974. As per WP:NTEMP, we have full right to reassess the continuity of notability now, 39 years down the line. Note also that one swallow doesn't make a summer and one review doesn't make a book notable (per WP:BK).  kashmiri TALK  13:32, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You are reversing the meaning of WP:NTEMP. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:29, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe. Still, notability of this book can easily be questioned even as of 1974 since that was just one review. I've proposed deletion per notability - feel free to prove the book is notable.  kashmiri TALK  15:20, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * We need to look at quality as well as quantity of sources when deciding about notability, but, as you seem insistent on applying some magic formula that says "two sources good; one source bad", I've cited another reliable source that has a page and a bit of coverage of this book. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:11, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not me who put the word "multiple" in WP:BK, sorry. Your second quote does not fulfil the criteria - it's just a cursory mention of the book which doesn't mean it's notable. See, there are millions of books and articles that are mentioned or listed in bibliography by other books and articles; but notability criteria stipulate that it's more than that.  kashmiri TALK  06:48, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it's not a cursory mention, but a page-long discussion of the book, i.e. significant coverage in an independent reliable source. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:56, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. In that case, we are getting closer to establishing notability of the book.  kashmiri TALK  20:59, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * So, when you said, "it's just a cursory mention", you were just guessing? That's not the way to conduct a good-faith discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 12:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

 <hr style="width:55%;" />
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 15:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" />
 * Keep. Per sources. Also found this sentence in the magazine Sangeet Natak: "This term was originally coined by Pandit Lalmani Misra in his book Bharatiya Sangeet Vadya." It's a "snippet view" so can't link, and can't see what the term is(!), but seems important a term was coined in the book. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:21, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Consider these. On this page in discussion about lineage of Sarod, Dr. Indrani Chakravarty's paper: "Sarod, its origin and evolution" makes reference to Bharatiya Sangeet Vadya at several places -- referred to in short as (Bha. Son. Vadya p. 49), (Bha. son. Vadya p. 50) etc. This is borne out by opposite view in discussion on Sarod stating: "The rebab was modified by Amir Khusru in the 13th century. Dr Lalmani Misra opines in his Bharatiya Sangeet Vadya that the sarod is an amalgamation of the ancient chitra veena, the medieval rebab and modern sursingar". Trayansha (talk) 20:25, 12 August 2013 (UTC)Trayansha
 * Thanks, but a brief reference to a piece of writing does not make it notable. <span style="font-family:'Candara',sans-serif;"> kashmiri <sup style="color:#80F;">TALK  20:28, 12 August 2013 (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.