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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:30, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Corruption in Pakistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log) • Afd statistics

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

This article started off as nothing more than a partisan screed and was quickly prod'ed. A well-meaning editor has tried to clean it up, but in the process has left an article that says nothing. I would redirect it to Pakistan, but there is no useful content to merge to the main article, and the main article does not contain a "Corruption" section. I believe that leaving this article to be expanded would just invite more partisan bickering. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:53, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The topic is notable and the current content is a stub which seems easy to expand in accordance with our editing policy. I shall provide a further demonstration. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as all this will wind up being is a laundry list of criticisms of Pakistan. Corruption exists in every nation of the world, but I fail to see the topic itself as worthy of an article. There are no doubt many sources that will tell stories of corruption in Pakistan, as Warden is no doubt preparing to regurgitate into the article as we speak. But sourcing isn't the issue here; giving undue weight to critics is. Tarc (talk) 13:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Politics of Pakistan. I agree with User:Tarc in that "corruption exists in every nation of the world". However, the meager amount of information in the article can be merged into a larger article instead of deleted. Guoguo12--Talk--  14:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. User:CMBJ has drastically improved the article. Thanks! Guoguo12--Talk--  15:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are other similar pages, such as "Corruption in India" - clearly this article is not good enough at the moment and requires much more work and preferably some additional sources, but the subject matter is notable and there are similar articles already established. Ashman05 (talk) 14:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Guoguo12; I originally seconded the prod when this was nothing more than POV, but with some information a merge to a larger article is best to keep this from becoming a political bickering ground and keep the sourced info. This definitely has potential, but would be best suited to inclusion in a main article for now. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 14:58, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This has well exceeded the Heymann Standard thanks to the hard work of editors (esp. CMBJ) adding content; it is now well suited to be a stand alone article and would even be cumbersome to merge now. Thus, I change my !vote to keep. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 13:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete This article seems to be similar to the history section of the Pakistan article. I don't think any info could be taken from this article and merged into the Pakistan article. However there are 3 good sources that could be used in the Pakistan article if nothing else! I'm Flightx52 and I approve this message 19:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Considering that a plethora of credible literature highlights the Government of Pakistan as being among the most corrupt governments in the world, it seems that this is an excellent topic for inclusion in a modern encyclopedia.   — C M B J   21:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge After review, I have changed my mind to merge with Politics of Pakistan. I agree with User:Tarc. I'm Flightx52 and I approve this message 23:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read the results of this study by Transparency International:

• General government: "Bribery has become so much part of the system that in all the seven sectors under study the demand was directly made by the office / person involved, a negotiator or middleman was hardly needed."
• Public utilities: "Corruption was faced even after obtaining [electrical utility service] by 96% respondents. Billing department employees & Meter readers appeared to be the most involved persons. Corruption in billing has two aspects. Consumers also tries to adjust their bills through illegal means & on the other side inflated bills are made deliberately to harass the consumers."
• Taxation: "With the exception of two respondents, the remaining 254 remembered some sort of corruption being faced, tax officer appeared to be the most involved. 32% had paid for the reduction of tax assessed. Nearly 14% said that their assessment was absolutely fictitious, and they had to pay bribery for proper adjustment."
• Public hospitals: "Obtaining of medicines appeared to be the most corrupt area. Health staff such as Dispensers, Technicians even Sweepers were mentioned as the main actors of corruption by 65% respondents, 24% mentioned about the Doctors also being involved. All respondents were of the opinion that without tips & gifts no attention was given and this sort of bribery is exhorted as a normal process. On an average Rs.905 was spent as bribery per respondent."
• Public education: "The experience of 70% respondents for admission has not been of fair practice, 42% said that some sort of donation was made compulsory prior to admission, followed by usage of influential relative or friend i.e sifarish."
• Courts: "96% faced some sort of corrupt practice by the court officials & clerks. Even witness demanded money for appearance. Judges have also been quoted to take bribe. One respondent said he paid One Lac in a murder case to the judiciary."

Corrupt public utilities. Corrupt hospitals. Corrupt colleges. Corrupt courts. There's no way you can describe all of this in Politics of Pakistan.   — C M B J   00:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Every nation can have its own corruption article if it doesn't already. Corruption in Canada and Corruption in the United States both list links to notable corruption cases covered in Wikipedia. After Colonel Warden reduced it to a stub, I don't see a reason why it was then nominated for deletion. It can be expanded into an article. People have already started to add notable cases to it. I'd be surprised if any nation didn't have corruption happen in it at sometimes. Click the Google news and Google book search at the top of the AFD, and you can easily find some results. Dream Focus 23:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think that fitting in a corruption section to Politics of Pakistan would be appropriate. Perhaps a shortened version with a redirect to the main corruption article might be appropriate. I have noticed that in the corruption articles that User: Dream focus mentioned, the one on the USA is in list format with some problems. Not saying that it's a bad article, just that I don't think these types of articles rank very high in someone's priority list. Just saying. I'm Flightx52 and I approve this message 01:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I have attempted to rectify the article with the nominator's concerns in mind.   — C M B J   05:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for ((rescue)) by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^chatter 15:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Clearly notable and often in the news. If the article has partisan POV statements in it, then just delete those statements. SnottyWong ^chatter 15:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Notable by any standard; it is a topic who saw a whole book dedicated on it in 1965 and other newer entries directly about the whole subject. POV problems are not solved by deletion but by editing, per deletion policy. --Cyclopia^talk 21:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep well known ,highly notable phenomenon in Pakistan one of the most corrupt countries on the planet. The current president Zardari is called Mr 10% and is a billionaire. Article could use some expansion though.--Wikireader41 (talk) 14:27, 9 November 2010 (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.