Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indians in Afghanistan

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 keep.  Sandstein  06:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indians in Afghanistan

edit
Indians in Afghanistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is pure WP:OR and is being used as a WP:COATRACK. The article says "Indians in Afghanistan currently consist of those working in various construction projects, as part of India's rebuilding efforts in Afghanistan" but is actually about Indian intelligence apparently arming Baloch rebels and attacking Pakistan. Which also makes it a WP:FORK of the Balochistan conflict Darkness Shines (talk) 18:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep A very sound article which definately has a place on wikipedia taking note of possible terrorist activities by some organizations does not mean it is pov darkness shines must stop being offended with information he may not agree with 109.150.57.127 (talk) 19:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying it is a WP:FORK of the Balochistan conflict? It is not about construction workers at all? Darkness Shines (talk) 01:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep and expand: This article is between stub and start class and is well sourced. The notability criteria is prominent on its own and as well as on all the sections cited. The nominator first tried to remove the information and has now nominated the article for deletion to by pass edit warring. The article is by no way a coat track since it contains only a small section (of few lines) about the Indian intelligence activities in Afghanistan which would still be there if the article was a lengthy one or even a GA class. That is called giving due weight to everything. Instead of deleting the article and it should be expanded on the areas it majorly covers. It would be a coat track article if it was based on the intelligence activities which it is not. This is like asking for a deletion of an article in its initial stages because it got a bit of critique while in that stage (that too not in much length). --lTopGunl (talk) 00:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is the article about construction workers or is it about Baloch rebels? Darkness Shines (talk) 00:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not about both in general. It is about all Indians in Afghanistan and their life there. These are two notable aspects which are in the scope of the article. Further, your opening statement says that the article says it is about construction workers which is wrong since the article is not just about construction workers and the article also mentions in proper weight about the intelligence activities. Feel free to add the cultural parts if you like. I support the expansion. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If it is not about construction workers the nwhy does the article start off with them? If it is only about Indians then why exactly are Baloch rebels being mentioned? Are Baloch's now Indian nationals? I am quite certain Balochistan is in Pakistan. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is crediting all notable reasons for Indians being in Afghanistan. These are just two. If you have others with references, you can add them. But then again, we don't say why is the article saying that Indians are doing these three.. because that's what their notability is there. You can surely object to this by providing references to other kinds of notability which would only support expansion. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What? You did not address my questions. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did see for your self. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Informing the creator is not canvassing, infact it was actually your job which I completed. And I told him to inform all other major contributors since the current history only shows all other minor contributions and the article was once deleted on copy vio. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He had already been informed Darkness Shines (talk) 00:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see that... and there's no harm done in anycase if he already knows since it is not canvassing then. Or is it canvassing when only I inform the creator? Pretty self contradicting. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Afghanistan had a large Indian community (many Afghan Hindus and Sikhs were of North Indian / Punjabi descent), and although many of them have migrated to Pakistan or India now, this diaspora article serves to discuss that subject of interest. This source I used is in particular quite informative about the community and shows that it numbered around 45,000 which itself is a sizable population. The part about construction workers, as well as the presence of Indian intelligence activists suspected of spying and terrorist-related activities is recent history and would preferably be better accomodated in independent short sub-sections. I suggest using the format utilised in the article Afghans in Pakistan which has a separate section for "terrorism" right at the end, discussing alleged militant activities. A similar concept could be followed here, such as by having an "Alleged intelligence presence" section whose content should of course comply with WP:DUE, WP:WEIGHT, WP:RS and most importantly WP:NPOV. Mar4d (talk) 04:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, the article is well sourced and staying on its scope and this debate about intelligence and construction is better to be started on the talk page of the article and is no reason for it's deletion. That content is already in very short prose and complies with weight as compared to the article size. The article needs to be expanded on all other expects and this (which is a notable part of it) will seem better suited with it then if that is the problem. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Afghanistans Indian community is very involved in reconstruction and India itself is very Involved in Afghanistan so it makes sense to mention them via a separate article and these are just allegations about insurgency allot of countrys blame each other for cross border activities of a sinister nature this does not amount to pov I am sure India blames Pakistan for allot of mishaps within India there is no need to be offended by it there is a good mix and match of Indian and Pakistani sources so I dont see why the whole article should be deleted such emotional actions themselves account POV chill out guys Suppositries (talk) 17:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)This editor has few other contributions outside of this area, and this is his third edit to wiki, ever. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note the above user is a tad bit paranoid who believes you need a phd or something in that order to edit wikipedia ignore I suggest Suppositries (talk) 21:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A lot of the edits on the page by Pakistani editors seem to be in bad faith and a poor attempt to publish propaganda on Wikipedia. Why waste your time on this? Isn't there anything better for you to do with your time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.71.39.10 (talk) 20:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You should assume good faith when interacting with editors or perceiving their actions. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This version of the article [2] is mostly neutral and contains only two sentences about such supposed activities; that sentence can be further fixed (or even removed zomg). Per WP:UGLY, this should not be deleted because it is a notable subject. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:27, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - The article in its current state is well-sourced, and the topic itself appears notable. WP:COATRACK and neutral point-of-view concerns expressed in this AfD discussion can be addressed on the article's talk page and through editing, rather than entirely removing the article from Wikipedia. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to keep since the article has been rewritten and now contains relevant content. I agree with Northamerica1000, the current version of the article is well-sourced and the topics now addressed are notable. JCAla (talk) 08:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. However needs development on the History aspect. Historical ties with India extend for hundreds of years. AshLin (talk) 10:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject is clearly notable enough for an encyclopedic article. Ample coverage has been found. Anything that doesn't belong can be discussed on the article's talk page, and removed or altered to be more suitable for Wikipedia. Click on the Google news archive link at the top, and the first results are about the president of Afghanistan commenting on how his government will take all possible measures for the security of Indians in Afghanistan, plus they be targeted and killed there. The article contains ample well referenced sections about various aspects involving Indians in Afghanistan. Dream Focus 12:12, 10 January 2012 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Indians_in_Afghanistan&oldid=1137929198"
pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy