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. Despite the large number of editors !voting to keep, I don't see a single argument which is supported by policy, nor any sources analyzed which meet the definition of WP:RS. Most of the arguments here are based on Alexa rankings and the like; these arguments have no place in a WP:N discussion.
The Dawn reference (Facebook provides free internet access to Pakistani citizens) certainly seems like a WP:RS, but doesn't even mention UrduPoint, so I don't see why it was brought up.
There was some shenanigans, as described on the talk page. I've largely disregarded the comments from both editors involved. I'm also assuming there was some canvassing going on.
With all that, we end up with, other than the nominating statement, nothing I can use to base any kind of consensus on. In theory, I suppose I could close this as WP:SOFTDELETE, but I'm sure somebody will ask for it to be WP:REFUNDed almost immediately, so that seems like a waste of effort. If somebody wants to bring that back for another look, WP:NPASR. -- RoySmith(talk) 19:45, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No in depth coverage in RS. globally ranks 1,082 on alexa. namechecking is not enough to satisfy the notability. The page on Urdu Wikipedia cites similar sources and nothing substantial so I assume there is no in depth coverage in Urdu RS as well. Saqib (talk) 15:21, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Global ranking of every site goes ups and down on different times. UrduPoint is the Pakistani based website. Sometime ago Urdupoints's global rank was also 419 but this time it's global rank is 1073, as per Alexa this site is 6th most visited website of Pakistan. In Saudi Arabia this is the 93rd most visited website, in the United Arab Emirates, this is the 57th most visited website. As per web traffic in Pakistan, Google.com.pk is 1st, YouTube.com is 2nd, Google.com is 3rd, Facebook.com 4th, Yahoo.com 5th, Urdupoint.com (Subject site) on 6th and Wikipdia.org (this platform) in on the 9th number. This stats show UrduPoint is Number 1 Pakistani Website in Pakistan, with 8.4+ million Facebook follower (if you consider facebook followers). Alexa is the most reliable source on Wikipedia, every website template has also an entry about Alexa rank. The subject website is also considered an RS on WP. As far as about coverage in other news sources, I think nobody can show me coverage of Daily Jang in Nawa-i-Waqt or some other newspaper coverage in other newspaper. Hope you will remove the deletion template soon.--Ameen Akbar (talk) 04:16, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pakistan two cellular companies, Telenor Pakistan and Zong Pakistan, are providing free internet access to the people of Pakistan living in urban and rural areas with the partnership of internet.org / freebasic.com. User of both companies can freely access only two and three dozen websites. Urdupoint is among these sites. UrduPoint can access free with freebasic by Zong and Telenor. These external links show that subject site has in-depth coverage across all Pakistan.--Ameen Akbar (talk) 05:17, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Notability of UrduPoint has already discussed and Contested on Talk:UrduPoint. Further, I want to say that above-mentioned tools like JSTOR etc., does not support the Urdu Language, while UrduPoint.com is world's most visited Urdu website, so this is unjustified to check this website with tools that do not support the Urdu Language. --Ameen Akbar (talk) 06:22, 3 February 2018 (UTC)--Ameen Akbar (talk) 13:15, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable as this is one of the top 10 visited websites of Pakistan, and one of the largest in Urdu as per above. Mar4d (talk) 02:50, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 20:06, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: This is a second-relist to allow this AFD a full span of seven days, due to the now-voided premature closure.Participants are reminded to read WP:ALEXA which states:--Alexa rankings do not reflect encyclopedic notability and existence of reliable source material if so. A highly ranked web site may well have nothing written about it, or a poorly ranked web site may well have a lot written about it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Winged BladesGodric 14:23, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above comments. Störm(talk) 14:56, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, it is mentioned several times in research [1]. Also dawn news mentioned it [2]. Aaj news mentioned it. So it does pass WP:GNG. M A A Z T A L K 08:52, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That it was mentioned in some research-papers (which are of the poorest qualities) in the most trivial manner is an utterly nonsensical argument.~ Winged BladesGodric 10:24, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And that too, in the most trivial-est of manners, as name-mentions.~ Winged BladesGodric 10:24, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any tool which show only highest quality reseach? UrduPoint is showing while checking scholar.google.com. So, subject is fullfilling this requirement.--Ameen Akbar (talk) 11:37, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep UrduPoint is one of best and one of the most visited website of Pakistan. Arif80s (talk) 12:07, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep UrduPoint is one of best and one of the most visited website of Pakistan. Since Alexa quoting is not viewed reliable in this round of deletion request as mentioned above, I take back my previous argument. Instead, I would like to quote a number of other websites which highlight the significance of Urdupoint - take this for example, which rates UrduPoint @ # 3. --Muzammil (talk) 17:28, 16 February 2018 (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.