This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kautilya3 (talk | contribs) at 17:01, 12 May 2018 (Comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 17:01, 12 May 2018 by Kautilya3 (talk | contribs) (Comment)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)2016 Indian Line of Control strike
- 2016 Indian Line of Control strike (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)
Textbook definition of WP:CFORK and WP:POVFORK. Entire article is copy-pasted out of India–Pakistan border skirmishes (2016–present), which was created in 2016 on this exact "strike". If anything, the post-2016 skirmishes should have an article, not this 2016 conflict which has an existing article. The title ("Indian Line of Control strike") is also inherently WP:POV and in violation of consensus here which was in favour of "military confrontation" as per neutral sources.
This is a rare example of a Misplaced Pages article being spun (from its own article) into a new duplicate article, re-Christened under a rejected title per WP:POVFORK, and the original article being reduced to events after that event (ironically). And it's been done without WP:CONSENSUS. This should be redirected to its existing article, and if the post-2016 events need to have an article, that should be discussed, not the original event. Mar4d (talk) 18:18, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep. Over 84,000 bytes of article was created in according to WP:SPINOUT. It's a reasonable split and there was agreement between at least 4 editors in good standing per Talk:India–Pakistan border skirmishes (2016–present)#Closure of status or change of title. Raymond3023 (talk) 18:30, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
- WP:SPINOUT doesn't say the main subject of an article should be entirely deleted from its own article, and pasted onto a new page. That's what a WP:POVFORK is. Mar4d (talk) 18:38, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
- Keep. Firstly, the article India–Pakistan border skirmishes (2016–present) (formerly called India–Pakistan military confrontation (2016–present)) had clearly gone beyond it's earlier coverage. The original article also covered the constant border skirmishes which occurred after the Indian claim of a "surgical strike". The end result was a massive article which covered a huge range of incidents from end of September 2016 to present. However, there is one incident among this which is WP:EVENT which had a lasting effect, had sufficient depth and duration of coverage, and importantly was covered by a diversity of international media and formed a major basis for two books. The content on this article was taken from the original article and is covered by a huge number of diverse, neutral sources over a sufficiently long duration of time. The content of this article was long standing in the original article and itself does not violate neutrality (the editors do not disagree on the CONTENT of the article). The nominator him/herself agrees that there should be a distinct article for the events following the 2016 event but that should not be this article but another article (this entire logic seems weird to me). Next, they point to a page move discussion (which happened in November 2016) that happened on a page which was not primarily about the "surgical strike" event but about numerous associated cross-border firing events between India and Pakistan. I strongly believe that the nominator wants is a page move on this article rather a page delete and this is not the right forum for this. Last, on the discussion of a POV name, the word "strike" is defined by Merriam Webster as as "to engage in battle, to make a military attack". To me the name simply implies an attack by Indian on LOC which is supported by numerous independent sources (,, ). This name does not imply that India crossed the LOC just that India initiated an attack. I fail to see how the article name violates POV (of course other editors might disagree) and I am happy to have that discussion but this a forum for deletion of an article not it's move. Adamgerber80 (talk) 19:16, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
- You are completely incorrect. When the article was created, it was on the "surgical strike" - and the page move discussion centered on that. The rest of your argument simply doesn't make sense because you're suggesting moving something from Article A to Article B, when A already has an article, and making Article A about an unrelated topic which Article A wasn't created for in the first place, and which happened way after Article A occured. Mar4d (talk) 19:31, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
- Can you please explain to me how India–Pakistan military confrontation (2016–present) was only about the "surgical strike" at it's version on 1 May 2018? The article clearly had gone beyond it and encompassed every border firing event which took place between India and Pakistan. And it was coincidentally you who moved this page from 2016 India–Pakistan military confrontation to 2016–present India–Pakistan military confrontation on 23 May 2017 indicating that you yourself believed that the article had gone beyond just the coverage of the strike itself (). If you indeed believed that 2016 India–Pakistan military confrontation was only about the "surgical strike" why did you move the page? Adamgerber80 (talk) 19:44, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
- You are completely incorrect. When the article was created, it was on the "surgical strike" - and the page move discussion centered on that. The rest of your argument simply doesn't make sense because you're suggesting moving something from Article A to Article B, when A already has an article, and making Article A about an unrelated topic which Article A wasn't created for in the first place, and which happened way after Article A occured. Mar4d (talk) 19:31, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. First, Mar4d, the information in the article India–Pakistan border skirmishes (2016–present) was not entirely deleted as you say. As per talk page discussions, 5-6 short paragraphs were left as a summary of the event that is the main subject of the 2016 Indian Line of Control strike article, along with a link to the strike article. Second, again contrary to what you said, consensus was indeed achieved on the talk page of the skirmishes article among multiple editors to branch of the subject of the strike article into its own article since it was concluded it warranted to have its own. Finally, the main subject of the skirmishes article is not the strike, it went beyond that and included all of the clashes that have taken place over the last two years. We have stated that the strike article covers a sub-event of the skirmishes article. To put it simply, the strike was one notable battle within the overall conflict that are the skirmishes. EkoGraf (talk) 19:46, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep - I suggest WP:SNOW (I read AfD instructions before jumping into these discussions dw =)) --VitalPower (talk) 20:02, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. VitalPower (talk) 20:10, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
- Keep - Notable event that should have a page. The nom is going OTT with the usual "POV this, POV that" allegations. I will just list a selection of sources that cover the event reasonably:
- M. Ilyas Khan (23 October 2016), "India's 'surgical strikes' in Kashmir: Truth or illusion?", BBC News, retrieved 23 October 2016
- India and Pakistan: Reversing roles, The Economist, 8 October 2016.
- Nitin A. Gokhale, The Inside Story of India's 2016 'Surgical Strikes', The Diplomat, 23 September 2017.
- Ankit Panda, Lessons From India's 'Surgical Strikes', One Year Later, The Diplomat, 29 September 2017.
- Safely meets WP:GNG. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:42, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
- Comment - This article is contentious enough. So we should wait for an admin to close it. --