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. MelanieN (talk) 00:43, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prabodhanam[edit]

Prabodhanam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Notability - ArtsRescuer • Talk me 07:15, 15 May 2016 (UTC) — ArtsRescuer (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Shafinusri (talk • contribs). [reply]

• Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:13, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 07:45, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 07:45, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 12:05, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Pinging Anthony Bradbury who seems to have deleted the article per WP:A7 and WP:G11. I'm finding it difficult to see the applicability of these criteria. The promotional content was removed from the article a few days ago, and what was left still made a credible claim of notability. Uanfala (talk) 19:36, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Tentative delete Quoting what I said at DRV: The one on-line reference in the article is to a blog, and the piece isn't even signed (submitted by admin3). My searching didn't find anything better, even on the Times of India website. But, I would also expect that there might be material in languages other than English, and even English sources might use a different spelling of the name. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:55, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I've added four reliable sources. One should search in Google Scholar and Google Books for references of old repositories. This news report, for example, covers the magazine's antecedents quite significantly. Xender Lourdes (talk) 20:08, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:57, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – WP:INDAFD search here. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:03, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - After looking at the recently added citations to the current version of this page as well as this article's counterpart on Malayalam Wikipedia (plus searching a bit through Google Books), I'm inclined to agree that the publication is notable. It's just a matter citing things properly being difficult given the language barriers. The page probably needs a bunch of improvements, not deletion. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:09, 1 June 2016 (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.