Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Balochistan Post

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. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Balochistan Post

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

No coverage found. Fails NPAPER and WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:30, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Mentioned in several books: [1], [2], [3] and more. 84.73.134.206 (talk) 19:36, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure this is the same entity though: the article is about a news portal reportedly launched in 2016, while your sources (at least the first three – I haven't looked at the rest) are all published before that year. – Uanfala 11:14, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. Apparently there used to be a newspaper with a now defunct website http://balochistanpost.com/ (see [4]). According to Urdu WP that newspaper still exists, but from what I gather here the original Balochistan Post (i.e. the newspaper) got into trouble after opposing General Musharraf. Anyways, it's another story. Probably. 80.219.255.14 (talk) 19:04, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala 11:14, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala 11:14, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence the entity covered by the article is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:21, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no indications of meeting WP:NWEB and significant RS coverage not found. Strictly an advertorial with abundance of external links in body as typical of such promo articles. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2017 (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.