Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/India and state terrorism

India and state terrorism

This information would seem to belong in the article about India. OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 08:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Comment I cannot vote on this, as my opinion would be slightly biased (being an Indian), but it looks as if this article should be merged into the article about the Research and Analysis Wing. It is not notable enough to merit it's own article. In all fairness, it does warrant a mention in the RAW article. I think every intelligence agency (including Pakistan's ISI, to a very large extent) has been accused of spying, and RAW is no exception. Anti venin 09:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I have no issue with the content presented, it just wouldn't seem to stand up as it's own article. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 09:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. In my opinion, I think this article needs to be cleaned or "wikified" as they call it, and needs more facts since the stuff written here is only a small proportion. Furthermore, adding this info to the actual RAW article would be a very stupid move because the RAW article should just entirely be focused on the intelligence agency itself with little amount of controversies written. Even if this info is substituted in that article, I doubt if it will exist even for a week, since pro-Indian users will have no hassle of removing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colombianstar (talk • contribs) 10:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Presenting a new article as a way to "get around" the community process regarding another article does not seem to be a valid argument for the article to be kept without merging. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 10:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a 'pro-India' editor, and I would keep the 'controversial' information in the RAW article, provided it is marked as such. The information does NOT deserve it's own article, wikified or not. Anti venin 10:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Antivenin, how can you guarantee that sensitive issues like these can be well preserved, especially on an article that is directly written about an Indian intelligence agency? As a note of reminder, I remember there was once content written about India's widely-alleged case of funding the Baloch rebels in the controversy section, and it was only after a short time that the info was deliberately removed from the page. You can now visit the page yourself, and you will find absolutely nothing relating to the so-called Baloch insurgency. If this kind of content cannot be tolerated overthere at all, I want you to clearly justify to me how it will be, once this article is deleted to your satisfaction.