Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yatra

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. Wizardman 05:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Yatra

Yatra (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Delete minimal context, no asserted importance, unsourced, fails WP:N. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. This is merely a dictionary definition. A list article of different yatras would be okay. Hazillow (talk) 03:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep: This article has potential for many contexts. The importance or Notability is not a criteria for deletion. I just added a source. --CyclePat (talk) 04:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • (Change vote from strong to regular... p.s.: Then again, it's dificult to find authentic information. Maybe if we had a second or 3rd source.--CyclePat (talk) 04:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Needed to satisfy 12 incoming links (ignoring special pages). Yatras are a significant feature of Hinduism. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • If they are significant to a religion with a billion adherents, why aren't there reliable sources? Moreover, saying X is a type of Y isn't moving the ball forward. What type of Y is it? Why is that type significant? How does it differ from other types of Y? an imaginary left-handed red-haired little brother is a type of imaginary friend, a notable subject with its own article, does the "type" now get an article too? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep absolutely vital aspect of Hindu worship, comparable to Islam's hajj. Millions of people take part in this, surely you've seen footage of things like the Kumbh Mela? I've expanded it somewhat to describe some other meanings of the word too. I'll try to continue expansion over the coming days. ~ Riana ⁂ 13:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep I can't believe this is seriously up for AfD. It should have been speedily kept as it was, but I've added two more reliable sources and clarified the meaning. I also added a few more incoming links, so there are now about 30. There could easily be hundreds of incoming links, all in the right context, if someone had the time. ~ priyanath talk 03:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —~ priyanath talk 03:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep Article is mroe than sufficiently notable and well referenced, also per above. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 03:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 03:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 03:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - Worth keeping. Still it needs improvement - Tinucherian (talk) 03:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Article is clearly meets WP:N and is sufficiently reliably sourced. --Shirahadasha (talk) 05:06, 27 February 2008 (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.