Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tune.pk

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 no consensus. Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tune.pk

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

Fails WP:WEBCRIT. I could find only one reliable source mentioning this site. Not enough to satisfy Wiki standards for notability of a website. SMS ^Talk 17:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. SMS ^Talk 17:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More source:
ProPakistani
Spider Magazine — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syedowaisalichishti (talk • contribs) 14:03, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first source you mentioned is not a reliable source. Second one may be a WP:LINKVIO. --SMS ^Talk 12:48, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: mentioning reliable source by the deletion nominator and other two sources this and that, it seems to me the subject passes the general notabilty, as I remember that for the notabilty at least one reliable source is required?.Justice007 (talk) 14:36, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It is a perennialy popular site. Especially after youtube was blocked in Pakistan, users have switched to Tune. Pointless nomination. Fai zan 01:55, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Needs significant coverage from a reliable source to pass WP:GNG. The source only shows trivial coverage.--Zayeem ^(talk) 14:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 19:00, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:31, 17 August 2013 (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.