Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Balochwarna News


 * 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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:10, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Balochwarna News

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Störm  (talk)  10:55, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: A quick reminder: When commenting stick to the subject at hand. Cite policies and/or guidelines when possible. And please be brief!
 * Delete. No refs, non notable. Szzuk (talk) 18:31, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:43, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I suppose I could have been briefer by saying "No Refs, NN." That would have shaved a word off it! LOL Szzuk (talk) 16:49, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Fwiw, the article does have refs. – Uanfala 20:19, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Not in my opinion. Szzuk (talk) 20:46, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, people are entitled to their opinions, aren't they? Now back to the facts: this article has one reference, it is to a book that only seems to mention the topic in passing, so of course this is not in itself enough to establish notability. – Uanfala 20:54, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That's a shame. Can you find any other refs? I looked but came up blank. Szzuk (talk) 21:06, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Baby miss fortune 03:38, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete being listed as a news site prevented from doing what its goal is to do in no way shows that the newssite is having coverage and impactful. Beyond this, the one citation could well be a long list of websites Pakistan has blocked, nothing indicates it is an indepth coverage of this one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:19, 10 December 2017 (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.