Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 India–Pakistan military confrontation

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The result was keep nomination withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) VarunFEB2003 15:34, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

2016 Indian military raid in Pakistan-administered Kashmir

2016 Indian military raid in Pakistan-administered Kashmir (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)

Per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOTNEWS. The claim that a "raid" took place on Pakistani Kashmir is by India. Pakistan has rejected that any action took place inside its territory, and said that it was a case of cross-border firing. The article is also redundant to the already existing pages 2016 Uri attack and India–Pakistan border skirmishes (2014–present) - to whom it is linked, and within which the incident is adequately covered. Mar4d (talk) 19:27, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

In light of the discussion below and content expansion, I am now withdrawing the AfD nomination. Accordingly, this AfD awaits admin or non-admin closure. Please do the needful. Thanks, Mar4d (talk) 07:46, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:44, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:44, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:44, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete: Agree with the nom, this is not even encyclopedic to begin-with. These types of minor skirmishes take place every other day on India/Pakistan border. At this time, these are all claims, one side is claiming they carried out a surgical strike inside other's territory, the other side is saying it was an incident of cross-border firing and losses were more on Indian side than Pakistani side. So due to conflicting claims, the article title would not be agreeable. This is just an attempt to open another Pandora's box. Rather than having a separate article for such minor skirmish, the content for this article should be covered under India–Pakistan border skirmishes (2014–present). Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:53, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

• Keep Article is self sufficient has enough evidence provided. also Mar4d has deliberately changed India–Pakistan border skirmishes (2014–present) article though it was India–Pakistan border skirmishes (2014–2015) and only contained data from 2014-2015. Also Mar4d has only added September 2016 event details without adding all the details for Jan 2016 to Aug 2016. to deliberately make a point. --Dude7190 (talk) 20:48, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Why do you think that there should be a separate page for skirmishes for every year especially when there is not much data to cover? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:54, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Whether to create new page for every year or not depends on many criteria. It is being discussed here right?, BUT when there is a discussion going on to decide whether these were mere skirmishes between Indian & pakistani military or raids/ strikes on terrorists launch pads along the LOC, AND weather there should be a new page or it should be merged with existing page. It is not acceptable to vandalize existing pages like India–Pakistan border skirmishes (2014–2015) to deliberately make a point. --Dude | Talk 14:43, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

• Something doesn't feel all right. I'm sensing WP:BATTLE type mentality of few editors; looks like some kind of wiki-skirmishes is going on between India and Pak editors. Anup [Talk] 21:41, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

• Keep The events in this article is very similar to Death of Osama bin Laden, which is an accepted one. Quartzd (talk) 02:33, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

• Keep This military operation is exactly similar to the Operation Geronimo in terms of precision, and larger in terms of fatalities. The death count varied from 38 to 70 onesided, as cited by different media. It is also expected to be a huge game changer in India–Pakistan relations, militarily and strategically. ~ Irrigator ^talk 04:26, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
• Comment, agree with Anup I'm also sensing WP:BATTLE type mentality of few editors here and as well on 2016 Uri attack which is heavily edited by editors from India and Pakistan only so I think it will be better if someone experienced user from some other location can decide. GSS (talk) 04:38, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
• Strong Keep – Clearly passed WP:GNG, and is also an article of high importance in scope of India. Following 2016 Uri attack, it was the response by the Government of India (such as Irrigator said, it is something like killing Laden for his role in 9/11 attacks). Covered by many reliable news sources that clearly passes WP:RS. But presently the article's style, structure and prose has lot of errors. This must cleaned-up. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:45, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

• Keep The subject has garnered massive media attention especially in South Asia; whether the "raid" actually happened or not is a different matter but its encyclopaedic significance cannot be contended. Almost all the major international news websites/channels have given it coverage (NY Times, Bloomberg, The Australian, BBC). It has been described as a "historical shift in the position of India in regards to Pakistan" as apparently the Indian Military never "crossed the Line of Control" even during full fledged wars e.g. Kargil War; ay dios mio these two countries fight a lot! Many countries have raised their concerns as both are nuclear-weapon states and escalation can lead to a very undesirable situation. What we are going to see here is Pakistanis voting for "delete" and Indians voting for "keep". I'm not questioning the judgement or neutrality of the nominator, who happens to be a Pakistani, but I've seen this kind of disagreement between both sides in past on several many occasions and sometimes it even gets ugly. — Bill william compton^Talk 04:56, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
• Delete basically a cross border firing incident made out to be something special. All the keep votes seem to be from Indian users who watch too much Indian news channels and seen to think its their word over the worlds its non notable outside of India to begin with. Inaghetto (talk) 07:54, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

• This user has only one edit outside this AfD, Inaghetto (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). GSS (talk) 08:40, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

• Keep I'd say keep whether it happened or not. It is a significant topic - with wide-ranging debate about what it implies and it effects a lot of people. Over time, if more detail is revealed, then the article can be enriched accordingly. Amiwikieditor (talk) 11:40, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
• Keep Indian government and India media report that India had carried out a cross-border raid. Pakistani government and Pakistani media deny it. The international media is non-committal. This is not the first time we have such a problem. Kulbhushan Yadav was created based on one country's media, it was AfD'ed, but the AfD didn't succeed. It can't be any other way. We can't declare that one country's media are unreliable. As long as the article is based on sources that we normally regard as reliable, the article stays. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:02, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
• Speedy keep - A very very big and a huge incident that basically can be a base for a world's first nuclear war between 2 countries. Highly notable. VarunFEB2003 12:09, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
  • WP:NOTCRYSTAL. If there is, God forbid, a nuclear war, then yes, this will be very noteworthy. But wikipedia is not the place for such predictions. We can only judge this article by the information we have at the moment.VR _talk 23:49, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
• Keep: An important news item.Ghatus (talk) 13:35, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Precisely! But wikipedia is not news.VR _talk 23:51, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
• Keep: A very important incident that has been rejected by Pakistan as is done to some other military operations. Rajan51 (talk) 13:35, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
• Delete: This was a fictitious incident without any independent sources backing up the claims of the Indian media and military. Unless and until independent sources collaborate Indian claims, it doesn't merit an article, which serves as POV pushing basically. cӨde1+6^TP 19:17, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
• Comment If such an incident is not supported by a diverse international media and more importantly evidence, it should be stated that this was claimed and not written as some sort of "proof". And I argue this the same for the so-called Osama Bin Laden killing which till this day has not been supported by any sufficient evidence aside from American government an media claims. That article should just state the name of the operation and include affirmative and negative arguments. Otherwise NPOV is pretty much dead or lost to democracy.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 19:34, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
• Delete this writeup. Indian claims have not been substantiated by international third parties and have been vehemently rejected by Pakistans forces. Moreover, India is yet to furnish proof on the international stage which would uphold their claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.28.231 (talk) 19:46, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
• Delete/Merge with India–Pakistan border skirmishes (2014–present): The article is about the just everyday minor skirmishes that occur along the LoC. As Sheriff pointed out, should we be having and article about very other skirmish that takes place there? Also, the Indian claim has been unsubstantiated todate. Even their own media and some sane voices have been questioning the claim. No independent source has verified it either. Though it has received considerable coverage, but then it's due to the fact that India media, in times of crisis, behaves like a mouthpiece of Indian establishment. This article in huffingtonpost.in: In War Season, Beware Of Disinformation Campaigns will give you idea about how fake the incident was. I wonder if everything which gathers media's attention is supposed to be at WP albeit being unencyclopedic?—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 20:16, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
• Keep The article India–Pakistan border skirmishes (2014–present) deals with a continuous set of skirmishes from 6 July 2014 to 2 November 2015. An event of 29 September 2016 is hardly relevant for that article. This page was also moved recently to 2016 India–Pakistan military confrontation and while Pakistan denies the military raid in Pakistan administered Kashmir, there's no denying that there was at least a confrontation that led to both Indian and Pakistani casualties. Filpro (talk) 20:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
• Delete: This is an extremely controversial claim which no neutral or independant sources have confirmed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.119.233.209 (talk) 00:44, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
• Speedy keep- The events in this article is very similar to Death of Osama bin Laden, which is an accepted one. Jayprakash12345 (talk) 06:51, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. This is a terrible nomination. Even if we acknowledge that confrontation was blown way out of proportion, the controversy in and of itself is sufficient to keep this article. I hope Mar4d isn't too quick to nominate articles in this manner in the future. Pwolit iets (talk) 14:39, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
• Keep This is an extraordinary single incident which is separate from the ongoing fighting. It has been covered alone by many media sources and as a single event has been the subject of commentary by noted experts in multiple countries with various perspectives. It meets WP:GNG. The event is already been discussed as something on which to reflect over time. Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:23, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
• Keep: Yes, it definitely is an extraordinary single event and is to be cited for ages. It marks a very notable strategic shift in India's policy towards its neighbor country Pak. For the first time India officially accepted that his army crossed the Line of Control, and that it carried out a surgical strike in PoK. Earlier it declined any such aggression even during Kargil war when it was reported by various media houses that Indian army reached territories beyond LoC. Anup [Talk] 07:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
• Must Keep This article contain enough information till date regarding the incident. Also the present state of confrontation between both nation may lead both countries to the war. The situation is just like the past incidents where later it turned into the war. The information on this page need to be monitored on neutral basis but it must be keep as it seem now. सुमित सिंह (talk) 09:03, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
• Keep – As many said, clearly passes WP:GNG. The information is cited with many reliable news sources. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:03, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

• Strong Keep, The article is well referenced, Books, newspapers references are given at the sentence end in the article, The title is as well not controversial so I recommend strong KEEP this article. "The Wikipedia is concerned with the reliable sources, to which this article fully accomplished".If the article has some sentence corrections, unwanted words that may be excluded and this article is strongly recommended to be KEEP as it fulfills all the criterion of Wikipedia. Thanks for inviting me for this discussion, India and Pakistan should live with peace, resolve every issue with peacefully... --Jogi 007 (talk) 14:03, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:GNG  sami  ^talk 08:16, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
• Speedy keep The article is notable enough having sufficient sources and references. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 04:17, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

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.