Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gaana.com (2nd nomination)


 * 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. This is very much a replay of the first AfD, with much the same arguments, and some of the same players. There's plenty of sources, but the contention is that the sources are either not independent (due to common ownership by the Times Group), or don't show the depth of coverage required by WP:NCORP. It seems unlikely that relisting this again would resolve that. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:29, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Gaana.com
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NCORP.That, this was launched by Times Group, it automatically discounts any coverage of the website in the newspapers/media-sources (Times of India, Economic Times et al) owned by them as non-independent.

Barring that no significant non-trivial coverage is located.Some mere mentions as a noted player in the specific-domain.

It made some news, when it was hacked by a Pakistan-based-entity but that hardly suffices any notability for the company. &#x222F; WBG converse 14:41, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:08, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:08, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:08, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:08, 24 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete Article is too promotional in tone and style.TH1980 (talk) 19:34, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment — I am afraid that may not be a valid reason for deletion, see: WP:Alternatives to deletion; article deletion—if I infer the aforementioned policy correctly—should generally be considered a last resort, an article should not be deleted if it can be salvaged through adding references, copyediting, cleanup et al. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 03:09, 29 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Weak keep — So, I did a bit of research and was amazed to find that there are not a lot of RSes covering Gaana, considering the relative grandeur of their advertising. But, I did find some coverage in non-The Times Group reliable sources. See—
 * Considering all this, I would prefer for this article to not be deleted. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 03:09, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * , I was actually borderline, as to my nomination.Post strengthening of our NCORP guidelines, we seek significant coverage in an intellectually independent source and typical coverage of funding/startup-fund-raisers don't count for any notability.In light of the above points and your sourcing, it seems to barely scrape through our notability guidelines.
 * I'm wishing to see a single source that satisfies the condition of intellectual independence as well as significant coverage.Let's see:-) &#x222F; WBG converse 08:24, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * , yeah, admittedly news about funding don't establish notability, but, to rectify that, there are other stories from reliable sources that I have listed. I don't know what your definition of 'intellectually independent' is, but, sourcing from non-The Times Group reliable sources should suffice, in my view. I do agree that Gaana just barely qualifies WP:NCORP. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 04:06, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Considering all this, I would prefer for this article to not be deleted. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 03:09, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * , I was actually borderline, as to my nomination.Post strengthening of our NCORP guidelines, we seek significant coverage in an intellectually independent source and typical coverage of funding/startup-fund-raisers don't count for any notability.In light of the above points and your sourcing, it seems to barely scrape through our notability guidelines.
 * I'm wishing to see a single source that satisfies the condition of intellectual independence as well as significant coverage.Let's see:-) &#x222F; WBG converse 08:24, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * , yeah, admittedly news about funding don't establish notability, but, to rectify that, there are other stories from reliable sources that I have listed. I don't know what your definition of 'intellectually independent' is, but, sourcing from non-The Times Group reliable sources should suffice, in my view. I do agree that Gaana just barely qualifies WP:NCORP. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 04:06, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * , I was actually borderline, as to my nomination.Post strengthening of our NCORP guidelines, we seek significant coverage in an intellectually independent source and typical coverage of funding/startup-fund-raisers don't count for any notability.In light of the above points and your sourcing, it seems to barely scrape through our notability guidelines.
 * I'm wishing to see a single source that satisfies the condition of intellectual independence as well as significant coverage.Let's see:-) &#x222F; WBG converse 08:24, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * , yeah, admittedly news about funding don't establish notability, but, to rectify that, there are other stories from reliable sources that I have listed. I don't know what your definition of 'intellectually independent' is, but, sourcing from non-The Times Group reliable sources should suffice, in my view. I do agree that Gaana just barely qualifies WP:NCORP. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 04:06, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * , yeah, admittedly news about funding don't establish notability, but, to rectify that, there are other stories from reliable sources that I have listed. I don't know what your definition of 'intellectually independent' is, but, sourcing from non-The Times Group reliable sources should suffice, in my view. I do agree that Gaana just barely qualifies WP:NCORP. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 04:06, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep passes WP:GNG is one of the three leading digital music players in India and  per SshibumXZ .The Hindustan Times  calls it Gaana, one of the leading India music streaming services as per this. The Financial Express states that "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." as per this Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:03, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep A top Indian streaming site from Category:Streaming music services Which is counted as one of the "major" players in the world Clearly passing notability. Also agree with Pharaoh of the Wizards above -- D Big X ray ᗙ  09:16, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Whilst POWizards is good enough, this is not a RS by any margin.Better efforts, please. &#x222F; WBG</b> converse 10:14, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   13:17, 3 October 2018 (UTC) <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   12:59, 11 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.