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. ✗plicit 05:04, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Pakistan Daily[edit]

The Pakistan Daily (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)

PROD removed without doing much. The sources in the article, in the own words of the creator, show that the outlet is quoted by other sources. While this probably makes the website itself a reliable source, none of it is significant coverage, but rather trivial coverage, which means that this fails WP:NWEB. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 17:00, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 17:00, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 17:00, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 17:00, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The Pakistan Daily is quoted and given coverage by numerous other international media channels makes it reliable and as well notable. Because normally we won't see other media outlets writing editorials and full articles about competitors. The most they do is either quote them or use them as reference. So if any international media is quoting Pakistan Daily then it should be considered notable. For example see this article which I found ^[1] where although Pakistan Daily is mentioned once but it doesn't mean it's trivial coverage because the whole article is based on the reports generated by Pakistan Daily and is acknowledged by Yahoo. Same is the case here in another source which I found today ^[2] where Asian News International has given significant coverage to Pakistan Daily by mentioning their name twice and the whole article is based on the reports generated by Pakistan Daily. Thanks. Jamalahmadpk (talk) 05:38, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Notability requires significant coverage, i.e. sources that "address[] the topic directly and in detail". The sources available here do not meet that standard: although they mention or quote or cite this news outlet, they don't discuss it in any depth. (The only exception is [1], but it's a non-independent interview that doesn't contribute toward notability either.) Although there have been various proposals over the years to loosen the notability criteria for media outlets (e.g. WP:NMEDIA), none of them have been successful: community consensus still favors applying the GNG in these cases. Since my search has found no coverage that is sufficiently significant under the GNG, deletion is appropriate. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:07, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I make extensive efforts to find any coverage about them in Google Scholar, Google News, Google Books and got nothing beyond primary sources and very brief mentions. Not notable. CT55555 (talk) 09:05, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep--I agree with "Jamalahmadpk" that we won't see other media outlets writing editorials and full articles about competitors to give them coverage. The article just need some editing and a few more references. FBedits (talk) 12:35, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep There will be very few media outlets (For Example BBC, New York Times, CNN etc) which will be quoted in Google Scholar, Books or other channels because these are the top media outlets in the world. The article about "The Pakistan Daily" should be kept in Wikipedia because it does contain a few good references and a lot more can be found through different Google searches as well. If we search it with the keyword of "thepakistandaily.com" then we can see more than 2500 search results. There are several media/newspaper pages on Wikipedia which are heavily relying on just primary sources for example Addis Neger, Immigration Daily where no references are given and even if you search online, you will hardly see any coverage. In comparison, The Pakistan Daily has been featured or given coverage by Yahoo, Asian News International and and many more. Thanks Jamalahmadpk (talk) 06:52, 28 March 2022 (UTC) — Duplicate vote: Jamalahmadpk (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.[reply]
• Keep Although all the references mentioned in the article can't be considered as "Significant Coverage" but there are still enough references available which makes the subject notable. Afzlfc (talk) 16:11, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Leaning towards keep The references like Yahoo, ANI mentioned them several times. Seems significant Mbilalwiki (talk) 12:15, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to closer - I have struck through a number of !votes above, which were all cast by socks of a blocked user. One of them is the author of the article, so it would probably qualify for a G5 speedy deletion, but it's probably worth allowing this discussion to be closed normally to establish a consensus on the subject. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:52, 31 March 2022 (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.