Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nispakshya National Weekly

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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:01, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nispakshya National Weekly

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

No indication that the publication is notable is given in the article nor can be found in a [ https://www.google.com/search?q="Nispakshya+National+Weekly" search] for sources which mainly consist of free download sites. Only link is to its website and appears to fail the general notability guideline. DrStrauss talk 13:54, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No independent evidence of notability and also the website takes a long time to load in some browsers. KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 14:28, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:58, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "It takes too long to open in some browsers" is not a metric to establish WP:N. In fact looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch&limit=500&offset=0&target=http%3A%2F%2F%2A.nepalnews.com.np there seems to be a strong indication that this was a bonafide national newspaper and as that notability would be a given (Just that we would need to find our GNG sources in Nepali). The link also shows that newsarticles used on Wiki seem to have stopped around 2008 which leads me to believe that this is a historic outfit, which would explain the current state of the website. I have asked a random Nepali editor to take a look. Agathoclea (talk) 08:17, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of multiple reliable sources needed to pass the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - virtually no in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:44, 10 September 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.