Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Balochistan Rural Support Programme

Balochistan Rural Support Programme

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

near-total absence of WP:RS to establish notability. Was unable to find any via either GNews or google itself, though there are lots of directories, links to non-RS, self-sourcing. In talkpage discussion with article creator and sole author, they acknowledged that there were few if any RS available. The only potential RS is the Pakistan Press International reference, which I have a query at WP:RSN about. If that is deemed reliable enough to establish WP:N I will be happy to rescind my nomination for deletion. [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 10:35, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:47, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:48, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:49, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found a German source from the Auswärtiges Amt (Office of foreign affairs) that it funded via the KfW the BRSP in 2009.[1]. Added it to the article. --Ben Ben (talk) 12:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Google translation from German to English: [2]. --Ben Ben (talk) 12:49, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A number of reliable sources exist about BRSP operation activities and activities during flood in Balochistan province of Pakistan. Here: [3], [4], [5], [6]. Nabil rais2008 (talk) 16:03, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because it contains a number of reliable sources, some of them at news and other website. It is a recent in news that the NGO is also helping in rehabilitation of Mashkail, a sub-division of Washuk District in Balochistan after a big earthquake. But I'll say it has other problems though like lack of neutrality, written like an advertisement and etc. But I don't think of taking it here at AFD. -- Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! ^{( T - C - G )} 17:09, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because the article is well referenced with reliable sources, and one can easily find them on Google, and it should not be deleted, however the content of article can be further improved to meet the criteria of Wikipedia article. Blog123 (talk) 17:25, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep reason as above... FudgeFury^{(talk|sign|contribs)} 17:57, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Step back from nomination. Better sources found, so i'm happy. rescind nomination, though article needs to reflect sources rather than current ad-like form. Thanks folks. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 19:31, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]