Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Research and Analysis Wing activities in Pakistan

RAW activities in Pakistan

RAW activities in Pakistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

WP:POVFORK of Research and Analysis Wing. The entire page has a total of 4 sources all Pakistan newspapers. Has been proposed for deletion multiple times but the same editor insists that they have "balanced" this article. Much of the article is based on speculation and large parts of it are either poorly sourced or unsourced. Adamgerber80 (talk) 00:23, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 02:37, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 02:37, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 02:37, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 02:37, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 02:37, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Comment How is the India Today (newspaper) a Pakistani newspaper? One of my references is India Today newspaper. Let the Wikipedia designated staff decide after they look at the article what the facts are. You clearly say on your User page that you are from Bombay, India. How can you be the ONLY JUDGE about this article's fate? Ngrewal1 (talk) 01:13, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Ngrewal1 Another independent editor GeneralizationsAreBad had also marked this page as a POV fork earlier (a year ago) and proposed it for deletion. You were the same editor who had removed it then by adding some "references" from Pakistani newspapers. Even now after it was proposed for deletion a year later you again removed it by adding more references from Pakistani newspapers and a single line from an Indian newspaper. Please look at WP:NPOV which this article grossly violates. Also, have a look at the Research and Analysis Wing article where most of this is covered with WP:DUE weight age. Now, when it comes to my nationality, please be careful about your wording. I don't claim to be a judge of anything and have thus bought this at a common forum. If you doubt the effectiveness of this forum then I cannot help you. Adamgerber80 (talk) 02:44, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Delete Article written to promote a specific POV and fails WP:NEUTRAL. Already covered under Research and Analysis Wing. --Hagennos^Talk 04:10, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
• SNOW KEEP The nom should peruse WP:BEFORE. There are numerous academic sources that discuss this in detail. For example India: Foreign Policy & Government Guide, Volume 1 , What We Won: America's Secret War in Afghanistan, 1979 89 by Bruce Riedel , India's External Intelligence: Secrets of Research & Analysis Wing (RAW) by V. K. Singh , International Security and the United States: An Encyclopedia, Volume 1 by Karl R. DeRouen, Paul Bellamy etc. etc. Elektricity (talk) 05:01, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

This seems to be a hastily put up list of references. The second and fourth references don't have more than a few lines about Research and Analysis Wing itself and make a passing reference to Pakistan. The first and third references contain some more information again which is about in general Research and Analysis Wing. if there is some information which can be integrated with the main article with no reason to maintain this fork. I am yet to see any form of substantial information which can sustain an independent article and cannot be added in the main one. Adamgerber80 (talk) 05:53, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

@Adamgerber80 Your argument for deletion was The entire page has a total of 4 sources all Pakistan newspapers. I have shown you multiple academic sources discussing RAW activities within Pakistan, hence rendering the deletion argument null and void. You claim that information from these sources (and perhaps the 32 thousand other book results as well) can be incorporated in the main article, but I disagree. The main should focus on RAW and its day to day business, with a prolonged operational history in Pakistan; this should have been forked a long time ago. Your Second argument that you made in a comment is that the article may vioate POV forking. This is again, I'm afraid, not true. The article does not point to anything as fact, which is common in articles about clandestine agencies. Rather it says what the reliable sources have said and then attributes the information to reliable sources. As I said , you should have read WP:BEFORE. Elektricity (talk) 09:17, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Keep of course. Nominator hasn't explained what is POVFORK about the topic. Issues about article material, if any, should be taken to the talk. That's not what WP:AFD is for. So far as the topic is concerned, it meets WP:GNG from all criteria. There's a long history of espionage and cross-border intelligence from India to Pakistan, and it's covered in all reliable, academic sources. The cases of Kulbhushan Jadhav, Ravindra Kaushik, Sarabjit Singh and Kashmir Singh are amongst the most notable ones to merit mention. And at the international and diplomatic level, Pakistan and India have for decades traded allegations on RAW activities, right from the heads of state to military and government levels. So there is no question as far as notability is concerned, and this article is of equivalent scale to topics like ISI activities in India, CIA activities in India etc. Mar4d (talk) 08:02, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
• Keep Yeah, may be the article needs expanding to become more readable, but compering it with Research and Analysis Wing isn't correct. The latter concentrates on the organization itself, where this one is more specific. Why need a separate article? Well, enough coverage exists for this topic to qualify WP:GNG.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 09:24, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
• Delete WP:POVFORK per nominator. The above WP:OSE argument for pursuing NPOV violation makes it even easier to a ackowledge why this article should be deleted. — MapSGV (talk) 12:11, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Interesting to see you acquainted with all these acronyms in your such short time of editing. Perhaps if you had actually also read WP:OSE, you would have known it's an essay, and more fittingly, the following: The rationale may be valid in some contexts but not in other. The argument about notability stands and you have not dis-proven it. Mar4d (talk) 13:33, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Unreliable sources never establish notability however... — MapSGV (talk) 13:49, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Delete. Mostly unsourced WP:POVFORK. Expand Research and Analysis Wing if you want, but I am sure much of the content of this POV fork can get rejected there too. Raymond3023 (talk) 13:02, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
• Speedy delete clear WP:CFORK of Research and Analysis Wing that was created by an SPA[1] to promote a POV. Lorstaking (talk) 13:12, 25 February 2018 (UTC)