Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oru Second Class Yathra

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. Nomination withdrawn. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 06:27, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oru Second Class Yathra[edit]

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

Subject of the article fails WP:NFILM. I can't find the significant coverages in multiple independent reliable sources to establish the subject notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 14:54, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No attempt made to provide references. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:44, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INDAFD: Oru Second Class Yathra

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

Keep per meeting WP:NF. The author's failing to expand and source this new article is sad, but it took but a mere 6 minutes to make it more presentable. Per WP:NRVE, WP:SOFIXIT and WP:SEP this meets inclusion criteria, and while it was originally pretty sparse, it needing work is a more reason to encourage improvements than it is to ask for deletion. Who else used WP:BEFORE to find significant coverage before opining? I quickly found Times of India Now Running Internationa Business Times The Hindu Indiaglitz and many, many more. Just how much more WP:SIGCOV is being expected here? Wikicology, RHaworth? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 12:52, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn:- I withdraw my nomination to Keep this article since its notability as been established.Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 06:27, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]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 (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.