- 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. Seeing as the keep arguments have gone uncontested. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 18:51, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Sandeep Ranade ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article has been repeatedly re-created and deleted. Please let me know if you want the details.
Technically to meet the
WP:G4 speedy deletion criterion, an article must
- be a page that was previously deleted via a deletion discussion, and
- is substantially identical to the deleted version, and
- any changes do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted
This page meets criteria #1 and #3, but not #2. Its text and references are substantively different to the
article deleted as a result of the 2011 deletion discussion. Perhaps things may have changed since then? It would appear to me that this is not the case. The references are still overwhelmingly from user-generated sources; as the default AFD text will show, there are no online sources (caveat: in English) that would indicate the subject of the article meets any of the usual notability tests. In my opinion, the question to be answered here is: should this article be
WP:SALT-ed as repeatedly created
WP:BLP of a non-notable person?
Pete AU aka
Shirt58 (
talk)
10:51, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator ( talk) 11:07, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator ( talk) 11:07, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator ( talk) 11:07, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
As an editor who has contributed substantially to content about Indian Classical music history (particularly the topic of gharanas, I created the Sandeep Ranade page twice over the last several years for two reasons. First, the subject is regarded as a luminary of one of the well-known musical pedagogies in India. Second, the subject has gained attention in the past year because of a music app for iOS that he authored and developed. Given the subject's cultural-historical and contemporary significance, the page should not be deleted or nominated for WP:SALT-ed given that recent attention and importance of the subject which challenges the premise of his being a "non-notable person." User-generated sources can be removed from the current version of the article in order to retain quality, neutrality, and objectivity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karanderao ( talk • contribs) 21:12, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:04, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
- Keep The articles in the Deccan Chronicle, Gadgets 360 look ok. Andrew D. ( talk) 11:16, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. This is more a case of a need for better editing than a lack of notability. In addition to the refs mentioned by Andrew D, the one in AsianAge is also fine. The refs to the press page of Ranade’s website contain cuttings from the press in Indian languages which demonstrate wide and sustained coverage. Mccapra ( talk) 10:06, 22 June 2019 (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.
- 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. Seeing as the keep arguments have gone uncontested. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 18:51, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Sandeep Ranade ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article has been repeatedly re-created and deleted. Please let me know if you want the details.
Technically to meet the
WP:G4 speedy deletion criterion, an article must
- be a page that was previously deleted via a deletion discussion, and
- is substantially identical to the deleted version, and
- any changes do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted
This page meets criteria #1 and #3, but not #2. Its text and references are substantively different to the
article deleted as a result of the 2011 deletion discussion. Perhaps things may have changed since then? It would appear to me that this is not the case. The references are still overwhelmingly from user-generated sources; as the default AFD text will show, there are no online sources (caveat: in English) that would indicate the subject of the article meets any of the usual notability tests. In my opinion, the question to be answered here is: should this article be
WP:SALT-ed as repeatedly created
WP:BLP of a non-notable person?
Pete AU aka
Shirt58 (
talk)
10:51, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator ( talk) 11:07, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator ( talk) 11:07, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator ( talk) 11:07, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
As an editor who has contributed substantially to content about Indian Classical music history (particularly the topic of gharanas, I created the Sandeep Ranade page twice over the last several years for two reasons. First, the subject is regarded as a luminary of one of the well-known musical pedagogies in India. Second, the subject has gained attention in the past year because of a music app for iOS that he authored and developed. Given the subject's cultural-historical and contemporary significance, the page should not be deleted or nominated for WP:SALT-ed given that recent attention and importance of the subject which challenges the premise of his being a "non-notable person." User-generated sources can be removed from the current version of the article in order to retain quality, neutrality, and objectivity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karanderao ( talk • contribs) 21:12, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:04, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
- Keep The articles in the Deccan Chronicle, Gadgets 360 look ok. Andrew D. ( talk) 11:16, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. This is more a case of a need for better editing than a lack of notability. In addition to the refs mentioned by Andrew D, the one in AsianAge is also fine. The refs to the press page of Ranade’s website contain cuttings from the press in Indian languages which demonstrate wide and sustained coverage. Mccapra ( talk) 10:06, 22 June 2019 (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.