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. asilvering (talk) 04:00, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Athmeeya Yathra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

It's like too promotional. And not have enough sources. References given there, which is affiliated with Athmeeya Yathra and not independent. WP:GNG and WP:NPOV. I strongly believe that, the creator of this article is associated with Athmeeya Yathra. And created it for its Promotional purposes through Wikipedia, which is against Wikipedia Policy.[1] United Blasters (talk) 16:57, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Television, Christianity, and Kerala. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:53, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep: with WP:NPASR. "Too promotional" and "not enough sources" (when there are several sources in the article) are not reasons to delete; see in particular WP:DINC. The nominator has offered no evidence of a WP:BEFORE and I'm certainly not going to do that work to support an improperly formed and groundless nomination. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:36, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you give atleast 3 reliable sources for it? United Blasters (talk) 00:17, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you give a valid deletion rationale? You haven’t and until then there is no reason to contest the nomination. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:45, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I understand the 'speedy keep' rationale, but I maintain that this article should be deleted, not just cleaned up, due to concerns about notability and promotional content. There is no Reliable Sources and it is not written in a neutral point of view. Also, the channel is already shutdown. WP:GNG,

  WP:NPOV United Blasters (talk) 02:34, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Give me reliable source United Blasters (talk) 02:56, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:BEFORE :

  I confirm that I conducted a WP:BEFORE search and was unable to find significant coverage in reliable, independent sources to establish notability. United Blasters (talk) 04:53, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: If there are promotional contents, clean-up the article as per Wiki policies. No reason to delete the article.
  Anish Viswa 04:24, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with that but still, there is a lack of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources to establish the notability of Athmeeya Yathra WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Check the references in Athmeeya Yathra, which is affiliated with Athmeeya Yathra and not independent. I searched for reliable sources, but couldn't find, so I moved to here. United Blasters (talk) 04:55, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to K. P. Yohannan: The article only cites the channel's own "about" pages. Fails GNG and WP:V due to the lack of independent, reliable sources. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 09:39, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Withdrawing my SK !vote since it has been mooted by Jeraxmoira. Regarding the nominator's since-expanded rationale, I am not sure how compelling just typing "GNG and NPOV" is as a basis for deletion and I have no opinion on the notability of the subject. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:16, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Reply. If all can understand, it's needed. UNITED BLASTERS (talk) 15:03, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (Ughhh.... What did I do wrong this time?) 14:05, 13 February 2025 (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.