Talk:Operation Sadbhavana (Goodwill)

Regarding WP:GNG related to this page
Does Operation Sadbhavana meet WP:GNG?

 Procedure of Analysis 

What is WP:GNG?"General notability guideline (WP:GNG) - 'If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.'"So accordingly,

Below I have tried to assess whether WP:GNG has been met or not. I have chosen 10 out of the 25 sources currently on the article. I have left blank rows in case you disagree with my assessments in any way. Note that there are more mentions online other than these 25. Where each of the terms mean (as found on WP:GNG) : -


 * "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
 * "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.
 * "Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.
 * "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.
 * "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.

So as a final assessment based on above - Operation Sadbhavana passes WP:GNG. - DiplomatTesterMan

Please do mention if you disagree with this assessment of Operation Sadbhavana meeting WP:GNG now or not? Do any other Wikipedia guidelines need to be covered for this article to see whether it deserves its own Wikipedia page or not?

Thanks.DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 08:47, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you have a decent job of analyzing each source but am not sure if you have looked at WP:GNG and how it applies to different events. Just because we have coverage of an event in news does not necessarily mean that it can stand on it's own. Here have a look at WP:ROUTINE. I think all the content we have on this page can be condensed and merged into Insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir under a different subsection. IMO, It will have much better context in that page because currently it seems more like WP:PROMO than anything else. The flow of the page will go with history, reason, conflicts and other things and in the end the efforts taken by the Indian state to help the populace. Over time that article can be branched out into the overall social efforts India has taken to deal with Insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir of which Operation Sadbhavana (Goodwill) is a part. I am happy to take this to WP:XFD have more experienced editors. They can discuss this and provide a different perspective to this content which I might not be able to see. Hope this helps. Adamgerber80 (talk) 23:28, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey . Let's get some input from other users relating to whether this page should be deleted or not. I don't think that should wait any longer. Is there anyway to discuss whether a page meets Wikipedia guidelines without actually requesting for deletion? DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 08:04, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Please could you help out and give your input. I wanted to know whether this page i have created Operation Sadbhavana (Goodwill) is notable enough to meet Wikipedia guidelines or if it should be nominated for deletion?... Or merely needs improvement? Any input and guidance would be appreciated. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 08:09, 4 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I think it's fairly clear that the topic meets GNG. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that it should have a standalone article; I'd much prefer this and related topics to be merged into a single "Indian Army operations in J&K" or something like that. There just isn't enough material for a standalone page, and as a result a standalone page is either very short or filled with unnecessary detail. What do you think? Vanamonde (talk) 09:08, 4 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I think that is a good idea since there are already pages I had created or edited which now I don't think should be standalone such as Operation Calm Down and Operation Sarp Vinash. Operation Sadbhavana will fit in the same category as these - 'Indian Army operations in Jammu and Kashmir'. Operation All Out (Kashmir) can also find place here and the current Operation All Out page be moved to a better title as seen fit by the current page move discussion proposed on the talkpage here - Talk:Operation All Out (Kashmir) (if the move if finalised of course). DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 09:39, 4 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, I too like Vanamonde's solution. I am always sceptical of "Operation X" articles. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:30, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Have already replied on Operation All Out (Kashmir) discussion. In general, I support this proposal and believe other articles might also need to be merged into this new article. Adamgerber80 (talk) 21:48, 5 July 2018 (UTC)