Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of support system in Pakistan for Osama bin Laden (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:52, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Allegations of support system in Pakistan for Osama bin Laden
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

This is a POV article with POV title, all this content better needs to be merged with the article Death of Osama bin Laden, which already discuss this issue in detail. S M S  Talk 19:33, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge As noted above, the article is redundant - this is a repeate of a section of Death of Osama bin Laden, except done in a more POV fashion. The POV running through this whole article also raises WP:Soap concerns. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Haven't all the reasons for keeping this article on Wikipedia mentioned in the first deletion discussion? Also, if the info in this article is already repeated in the article about Osama's death, then i think this article is a more appropriate place to keep that info, as it has a generalized title. As noted in the previous deletion discussion, this article follows Wikipedia's norms of notability and has reliable sources. As for POV, the first word of the title of the article is "Allegations". Regards, Anir1uph | talk | contrib 03:16, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

"allegations" — well-verified, note-worthy and paramount allegations made by some very notable political figures, yes. Not all POV is unacceptable, Criticism of Facebook or Criticism of the Israeli government or Criticism of religion all reflect a POV but they are existing, as they should be. If there are other problems, they are surmountable anyway. This AfD is needless and a POV itself. Read what I wrote below. Mrt3366  (Talk?)   12:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC) 17:50, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep agree with Anir1uph. Neither a POV article nor a POV title. Factual article on a notable topic which is suitably covered in reliable sources, The comments on the 1st nomination still hold here.-- D Big X ray  07:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - per WP:GNG. also discussed in full at the previosu AfD. Dont see a reason for deletion.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:50, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - Why is this article nominated for the 2nd time? Article could be improved. But clearly it is not about a Fringe theory and has substantial coverage in mainstream sources and easily verified. it's been discussed in The Wall Street Journal, BBC News, CNN, and the New York Times. President Obama discussed this on 60 Minutes earlier. This is neither a speculative theory nor a baseless conspiracy theory. This article is about well-sourced allegations and that's what it is doing. There have been multiple accusations by various nations against Pakistan about this exact topic (as demonstrated by the article itself). And this meets WP:GNG also.
 * Delete and merge The article is precisely described by it's title - a smokescreen of allegations. There has been no formal evidence officially proving the allegations, neither has the United States formally conveyed to Pakistan that this is the case. This is WP:SOAP and WP:FORK. The article is redundant, there is nothing here that cannot be discussed at the Death of Osama bin Laden article.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 01:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: Death of Osama bin Laden is the right article to cover any allegations. A separate article only for the allegation seems to be out of the line as the title itself explains. Any useful info from this article can be merged there if loss of content is a concern. -- lTopGunl (talk) 02:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a very notable topic which certainly warrants an article. Darkness Shines (talk) 06:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There are academic sources on the issue, An Unwinnable War: Australia in Afghanistan Melbourne University Press. Darkness Shines (talk) 06:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep These allegations have been widely popular, and are completely due to warrant an article. Death of Laden is a different topic. Also I see no instance of obvious bias in the article. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 10:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete with Death of Osama bin Laden I believe a section exists about the same thing this seems to be a case of WP:Soap same old same just written in a very pointy manner seems more like a article for pandering the individuals who have a certain pov of Pakistan Westwoodzie (talk) 13:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC) — Westwoodzie (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  This account has been blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Nangparbat Darkness Shines (talk) 11:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - While this may be semi-related to Death of Osama bin Laden, it has more to do with Pakistan's actions while bin Laden was alive, so a merge there would be inappropriate. These action are widely reported see, and notable, so this certainly warrants an article.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 14:41, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment This is a WP:POVTITLE which has made the scope of the article limited to only allegations on an entity thus making the whole article a non-neutral. Besides this article is a WP:POVFORK, started by a disruptive editor who was indefinitely blocked for disruptive article creations. -- S M S  Talk 16:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * But you're not here to merely rename the article, are you? You're here to outright delete the article, isn't that why you nominated the article for deletion? Titles can be changed, it's a surmountable problem, no need to delete the article because of that. And like others have already stated, This article is concerned with Pakistan's actions while bin Laden was alive.These allegations have been widely popular, and are adequate to warrant an article. The killing of Osama bin laden is a different topic.
 * The content and title of this article is very notable. As far as I know, Pakistan is accused of "harboring Terrorists" by several governments, and it's also true that Osama bin laden was found to be living inside Pakistan. Mrt3366   (Talk?)   10:05, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding your comment above, take note of WP:SOAP. If you cannot find a proper internet chat forum for expressing your personal opinion, at least don't pollute a Wikipedia AfD.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 13:47, 10 August 2012 (UTC) Note: User has modified the comment  Mar4d  ( talk ) 01:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you really serious? That was completely a decent comment. Sorry if I am getting harsh, your comment applies more to you than others. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 13:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey guys calm down however I am confused I noticed something tonight most of the users who voted "keep" on this AFD here are voting delete on another AFD India and state terrorism with the excuse of it being "allegations" do I sense some sort of double standards when it comes to Pakistan? since this whole article is titled as a "allegation" it should be deleted just for its pov title again I could be misinterpreting everything but it seems some users have a conflict of interest I don't mean to offend you Vibhijain et al who voted in the other AFD just a observation of mine Westwoodzie (talk) 20:16, 10 August 2012 (UTC) — Westwoodzie (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  This account has been blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Nangparbat Darkness Shines (talk) 11:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What I don't understand is how your observation is relevant in any of the deletion discussions. Now all I could say is that this article is exclusively about well-verified, very notable allegations (since it says so in its title) against Pakistan from very notable people (e.g. High-ranking CIA operatives, VP of global intelligence firm, The President of USA, Foreign Minister of France and other international political figures), it is not predicated on WP:SYNTH or WP:OR or a conspiracy theory. Mrt3366   (Talk?)   06:14, 11 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete The relevant material is already there in Death of Osama bin Laden. This is an obvious POV fork and, seriously, an entire article built on the word "allegations"! --regentspark (comment) 15:29, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * - See WP:SUBPOV. "“Different articles can be legitimately created on subjects which themselves represent points of view, as long as the title clearly indicates what its subject is, the point-of-view subject is presented neutrally, and each article cross-references articles on other appropriate points of view.”"
 * Mrt3366  (Talk?)   08:01, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This is true, but there's no need to do so when we can give sourced, encyclopedic treatment to both sides, presenting allegations of a Pakistani support system for bin Laden along with information regarding Pakistan's cooperation with the US and its allies in tracking him down. That's why I think this is better addressed in a broader article about Pakistan's role in the war on terror. Yes, this article is large compared to that one, but I think merging could help drive its expansion. --BDD (talk) 04:02, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I know, but that's the whole point of WP:SUBPOV, isn't it? You can create an article even though its subject is a POV as long as that subject is presented neutrally. Even if the subject of any article is controversial, this does not automatically make the new article a POVfork. BTW, I was addressing the pseudo-POV concerns raised by RegentsPark et al, and nothing else.
 * There are well-grounded articles whose subject is based on a particular POV (e.g. Criticism of Atheism, Creation science, Biblical criticism, Criticism of Christianity). So what's the problem if we kept this one when it has political ramifications and is a big issue itself? Mrt3366   (Talk?)   09:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge to Pakistan's role in the War on Terror. Yes, it's unusual to recommend merging to another article up for AfD, but it looks very likely that that one will be kept. The title of this article does look a bit POV to me, so I think merging is a good option. --BDD (talk) 18:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 16:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

 That would be my preferred second solution. Whether this supposed support network existed or not is irrelevant: the article is about the substantial corpus of allegations. And it is alleged this support network existed before the Death of Osama bin Laden. Also: do remember what the article's title started as. --Shirt58 (talk) 09:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The allegations have enough verifiable discussion and support to deserve mention on Wikipedia, regardless of whether or not the allegations themselves are true. Merging seems to be out of the question considering how long this article is. It seems best to keep the article as it is. -NorsemanII (talk) 00:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. There are good arguments put forward by advocates of both retention and merging; in particular, I think BDD's is a bold and elegant solution to a difficult problem.
 * Indeed, that article is once renamed and nominated for deletion before, yet we're seeing this nomination. Mrt3366   (Talk?)   09:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - I don't think it's a POV article, but rather a sourced article about a POV. There's a distinction there, and I don't see any reason to delete or merge the article, especially when the merge target is large enough as is. - SudoGhost 19:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Now that Pakistan in the War on Terror (my rename) has comfortably survived AfD, I'll again suggest it as a logical merge target. Yes, it needs work, but that's the overarching topic. --BDD (talk) 04:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, you can add some relevant segments of this nominated article to this page — in fact, I think you should — but that doesn't necessitate the liquidation of "Allegations of support system in Pakistan for Osama bin Laden". This is an AfD discussion, not a merging proposal, did I miss something? Hence, if you want this article to be deleted and then merged, please first kindly specify why you think deletion is necessary. Mrt3366   (Talk?)   06:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know if you're addressing me specifically or everyone who wants a merge, but I'm not the first one to suggest the article be merged. Inasmuch as the nominator said the article needs to be merged, I would have preferred that the WP:PM process be followed. But merging is a valid outcome at AfD, even if I think that fact is regularly abused when PM is more appropriate. --BDD (talk) 14:54, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What I'm humbly asking you — or any other user in favor of deletion + merging — to do is, explain why deletion is needed . Now, if you — or any other user — do not think that deletion is necessary, then a clear expression about that would be nice. That's all. Good day. Mrt3366   (Talk?)   17:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you distinguishing between "delete and merge" and "keep and merge" votes? I see both used at AfD, but they usually mean the same thing. I try to avoid double votes like that. --BDD (talk) 17:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep I disagree with the nominator's proposal. After having had a good look at the article, the article doesn't seem to have a POV issue. Infact it covers well the scope laid out by the article title. And the title is certainly not POV pushing. If the title was Pakistan's support for Osama bin Laden, it might be a bit off. Deleting an article for a bad title is stupid anyway as it is just one click away from changing it. And the diverse content discussed in the article does not warrant merging and condensing the whole of the article to a single paragraph is not possible without missing key details given the extensive independent coverage this topis has received. Suraj  T  09:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge to Location of Osama bin Laden. This is just a POV fork of the content there and this is a reasonable location to relocate anything salvageable. That title alone shows this to be an article that is standing on thin grounds as being notable in and of itself as the Manual of Style recommends avoiding the word WP:ALLEGED.--Joshuaism (talk) 13:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * — WP:ALLEGED actually says, "'Alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people on trial for crimes. When alleged or accused is used, ensure that the source of the accusation is clear.'"
 * The article is not in contravention of WP:alleged, is it? In this article all the major allegations are supported by reliable sources, nor is it a fringe theory. Thanks. Mrt  3366   (Talk page?)   14:22, 20 August 2012 (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.