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 no consensus. Many weak rationales in both sides of the debate, with the keeps saying this is not a content fork and little else, the delete side stating this is OR (with very little to back it up) and others are advocating a merge of two articles into this one. Sounds more like an editing dispute and impossible to read a consensus here. I don't think relisting would help. Secret ^account 04:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Human rights abuses in Kashmir[edit]

Human rights abuses in 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)

Article is redundant and a content fork of already existing articles on the topic - namely Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir and Human rights abuses in Azad Kashmir. This article serves no purpose other than being a duplicate and has a questionable scope, given that it does not cover the history of human rights either [1]. Mar4d (talk) 11:18, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge I suggest the two articles be merged into the present one. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 12:56, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Question for Nom. - how is it being used as a content fork can you explain please? Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 13:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to the admin : there is the discussion that reached a rough consensus against inclusion of selective original research in the name of "history of Human rights" (The secondary sources don't call it as human rights abuse). Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 13:31, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, I agree they are redundant and a content fork of already existing articles. No need of multiple articles on the same subject. Faizan Al-Badri -Let's talk! 13:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"No need of multiple articles on the same subject." - they are not about the exact same topic. This is nomination is WP:POINTY. See Wikipedia:Summary style. You might work towards keeping summary articles and detailed articles synchronized rather than asking for its deletion. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 13:44, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article serves no purpose when its sub-sections have already articles of the same content. I tried to make it eligible look like different, I added the cause and some related incidents from history it was removed, labelled as OR, you disprove then it‘s labelled as no HRV, again you disprove they turn things over. When you restore it they attack on your user talk page. The article serves a purpose only if it is restored to this version.  MehrajMir (Talk) 14:45, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per WP:SUMMARY This is the parent article, and there are no article BTW in HRV in Gilgit-Baltistan as yet. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need for this article given that there are already dedicated articles to Kashmir HRV in Jammu Kashmir and Azad Kashmir already. A third summary article serves no purpose other than WP:REDUNDANT. There is nothing in this article that can't be covered in better detail in J&K and A&K articles. Gilgit-Baltistan content can be merged into Human rights abuses in Azad Kashmir and that article renamed to Human rights in Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan. Mar4d (talk) 00:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think we have WP:SUMMARY? The article is not redundant as it is a summary article and the parent article of the others. As you just wrote, we have dedicated articles already (I know this of course as I wrote them) then a summary article is needed. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mar4d, you're dead-wrong again, wondering how?

1. This article aims to provide the whole record of Human rights abuses in the entirety of Kashmiri region.
2. Kashmir HRV in Jammu Kashmir and Azad Kashmir are two subsections of this article then by your logic we should redirect the smaller articles to the parent not the opposite.
3. Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan are two different entities in Pakistan, hence one article for each is due.
4. You're trying to disrupt Wikipedia with this AFD to illustrate a point merely because you're upset A. that OR and POV content were not allowed to be included in the name of "History of Human rights" B. that Hindu Taliban was AFDed.

This is just a pointy nomination. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 05:29, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep and improve the sync rather than crying "delete!". Per WP:SUMMARY. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 06:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Noteworthy topic in its own right with significant coverage from secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 15:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge what little non-redundant content there is and delete anything else. This seems like a very, very clear case. There are already two well-written articles on the topic. This article is poorly written and is composed of scavenged sources from the others. Merge what isn't redundant and delete the rest per WP:REDUNDANT. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:45, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not that clear. WP:REDUNDANT is not applicable here:

1. it doesn't address summary articles or SPIN-off articles.
2. it talks about those pairs of articles who are exactly about the same topic. Here we have an article about Kashmir and two articles about two separate subsets of Kashmir, namely Azad Kashmir and Jammu and Kashmir (and we are still in need of an article about Human rights abuses in Gilgit Baltistan which is only in the parent article). Hence they are different territories governed by different nations.
3. Human rights abuses in Kashmir is more notable than the individual spin-off articles. Then by this logic we should delete the other two articles and merge them with this article, should we do that?

I hope it helps. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 06:20, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need help, and my comment still stands. And, while you have the right to respond, the argumentative nature on this discussion and at least one other India-related discussion isn't helpful. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:44, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It's synthesis. The sources treat human rights abuses in Azad Kashmir (state of Pakistan) and Jammu and Kashmir (state of India) separately. Gilgit-Baltistan, is to everybody except the Indian government and those who it browbeats (such as certain UN agencies) into accepting its views, separate from Kashmir. I would expect from this article to have sources and analysis which address human rights issues common to both "Kashmirs", if they did have enough similarity to be compared with such regularity.

  Also, this article suffers from a ridiculous syndrome common to India-related articles on Wikipedia. When human rights agencies and the news talk about "human rights abuses in Kashmir", they are talking about the Indian state, where the repression is especially extensive. Azad Kashmir in Pakistan is self-governing. This diversionary and undue emphasis on Pakistan's (or not-India's) problems has ruined the articles on bride burning and caste, which of course refer in the majority educated population and to academia as well to Indian problems. Shrigley (talk) 00:46, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is not synthesis. Read WP:SYNTH. Don't understand why you like pointing to random policies.

"I would expect from this article to have sources and analysis which address human rights issues common to both "Kashmirs"" — why? You yourself acknowledged that the two kashmirs are governed by two nations then why should we not treat them separately? what kind of demand is this? Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 06:11, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, subject has received significant coverage from non-primary reliable sources, therefore the subject passes WP:GNG. As the article covers two different nations, a merge and redirect to Human rights in Indian or Pakistan would not be possible.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:45, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have not read the nomination rationale or the comments above. We are not discussing a merge into human rights in India or Pakistan, but rather into the already dedicated articles of Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir and Human rights abuses in Azad Kashmir. Why do you believe the content here cannot be merged into those already existing articles? Mar4d (talk) 01:50, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because

1. we don't have article about ″Human rights violations in Gilgit Baltistan″ (which should be created on its own merit)
2. This article is a summary style article.

I hope it helps clarify the issue. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 05:53, 18 April 2013 (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.