Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forced conversion to Islam in Pakistan


 * 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.  Sandstein  16:32, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Forced conversion to Islam in Pakistan

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Violation of WP:Advocacy, and the author might be a WP:COI editor (even though there is little trace of it in this article alone). To quote Harshil: "They are adding inappropriate details of organisation in articles like Hinduism in Pakistan, Hinduism in Russia and other articles." Also, this article has been almost exclusively edited by only two editors, User:Lebronplz and User:Spasiba5, who share the same POV and COI concerns and biased viewpoints, if they are not outright sockpuppets. ωικιωαrrιor ᑫᑫ1ᑫ 16:52, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - POV is not grounds for deletion. The article seems well-sourced, including international news channels and Pakistan's own media. If the the slant is skewed, the editor is welcome to improve it or tag it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:44, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:59, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:59, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:59, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:01, 31 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete it's a POVFORK, there are many misleading unsourced claims in the article. For example, in the lead it says, "Every year about 1,000 non-Muslim girls are forcibly converted to Islam in Pakistan." the source, however, doesn't say that they convert "forcibly", here is what it says "According to a report from the Movement for Solidarity and Peace, about 1,000 non-Muslim girls are converted to Islam each year in Pakistan." Also, the report from the movement for solidarity and peace explicitly says that, "Statistics on forced conversions are either proximate or unavailable". So we don't know if this figure is about "forcibly" or willful conversion or both. I am not a fan of the Pakistani government but I think this article is POVFORK.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:02, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , What is it a POVFORK of? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:21, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , Religion in Pakistan.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:14, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Religion in Pakistan is about how religion is practised, not about how it is blocked from being practised. After some searching, I found Religious discrimination in Pakistan, which has a section on the topic, even though I would think that forced conversion is a lot more than "discrimination". But if it is the case that a thousand people a year are being forcibly converted, I would argue that the topic merits its own article. I once wrote an article on a a single instance of falsely induced conversion. It is not a great article, and I wouldn't write such an article today. But I would note that, after 5 years, the article is still standing. If I were you, I would try to improve the article and make it more readable and thorough, not to erase it off the map. (By the way, the souce you just cited has "forced conversion" in its very title!) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:18, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , the title is about that case. The paragraph doesnt say that the 1000 converts are forcibly converts. It says
 * That is obviously not saying that the 1,000 are forcibly converting. The report from the Movement for Solidarity says
 * I dont know why did you ignore what I said in my comment and only pointed to the title which is about something different.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:51, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I possibly ignored it because the source that is actually cited in the article does say 1,000 people are "forcibly converted". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:03, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I look at the article... Who is the author? What is the publication? In addition if we accept this as RS, I read the article to be equivocal on the numbers, just like other articles which parrot the same headline and represent it as fact. It is like Clickbait. Most people do not read further than a sensational headline. According to reports, approximately a 1,000 girls are forcibly converted to Islam every year. Predominantly the victims are girls from the Christian and Hindu communities. There is no doubt that there are a number of genuine cases of conversion of non-Muslim women, who convert and marry Muslim men. They go on to say, when women are queried about their marriage we cannot believe the women who claim they were not forced. All of these supposed RS spit out the headline, and then bury a disclaimer. Lightburst (talk) 15:55, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The News International (or The News, as some people call it) is a standard Pakistani newspaper. We generally regard such news articles as WP:RS and report them as fact, unless there is evidence to the contrary. The kind of content discussion you are engaging in, needs to take place at the talk page of the article, not at an AfD. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:25, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I am discussing a source you have presented at AfD which does not say what you have claimed: "the article does say 1,000 people are "forcibly converted" Lightburst (talk) 17:34, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to disagree. I mentioned the source that was cited in the article. I didn't make it up on my own. As per Wikipedia policies, it is a reliable source. If you disagree with the source, it is a content dispute, not a policy dispute. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:01, 2 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment - is correct.  POV is not grounds for deletion.  When the underlying topic is notable, the article should generally be kept and fixed. , POVFORK is a valid justification for a redirect and merge back into the original article, when the two articles really are about the same topic, not two related topics.   (Genuine POVFORK is rarely a valid justification for deletion...)  So, it would be really helpful if you explicitly named the earlier articles you think this article was forked from.  Could you do that please?  Clarification - are you saying actual passages were cut and paste from that other article?  Or are you merely asserting they are on the same topic?  FWIW, I think we should reserve the terms FORK, or POVFORK, for instances where material was actually cut and paste from an earlier article.  Geo Swan (talk) 20:59, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not saying that it was "forked", that's not what POVFORK usually means. The notability of the subject seems to me that it is not for a dedicated article but for an inclusion in Religion in Pakistan article. I also noted that the article has many unsourced claims and probably unreliable sources and this is also another induction that the article is POVFORK and original research.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:14, 31 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Nominator, WRT COI, I am trying to figure out who could be in a COI for this article. (1) Those who actively force conversions; (2) those who were targetted by forced conversions.  I suggest that this is the kind of topic where everyone else is going to have a personal opinion.  I suggest you are very unlikely to find anyone who honestly hasn't formed an opinion as to whether forced conversions are a good thing or a bad thing.  So, I suggest, if, as you said, you can't point to particular passages you think lapse from neutrality due to a POV, we should ignore your suspicion contributors have a COI.  Geo Swan (talk) 21:19, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The COI claim seems unclear to me but I think it's fair to say that many new editors misunderstand what are the things that constitute as a COI.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:29, 31 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Nominator, WRT to SOCKPUPPETRY, if you compare the time cards of your two suspects, they aren't active at the same time.  So you may owe them apologies:    Geo Swan (talk) 21:47, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete there are 1.8 billion muslims in the world. As a percentage 1000 is 0.0000555555555556%. This article appears to be a damaging WP:POV push, and perhaps WP:OR. Lightburst (talk) 22:23, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , consider Lynching in the United States. In recent decades scholars have consulted old records, old newspaper archives, to determine how often racist Southerners lynched black people in the United States.  They concluded there was documentary backup for about 4,000 lynchings.  We could use the same reasoning you used above, stating that only mere thousands had been lynched, and that meant only a miniscule proportion of blacks were targets of lynching, and only a miniscule fraction of southern whites were lynchers.  Someone could suggest, as you seem to be doing, that covering lynching was some kind of insult to white Christians.  They could suggest, as you seem to be doing, that therefore, lynching shouldn't be covered at all.
 * NPOV has a section, WP:UNDUE. If there were no documents, no reliable sources, that had ever covered lynching, we couldn't cover it.  We couldn't cover it, even if we all knew it had happened, because policy requires articles to be based on WP:Reliable Sources.  And, when reliable sources cover something, that only happened to 1000 people, or a hundred people, or even one person, it probably merits coverage.  Consider the Dreyfus Affair, an old scandal, in France.  Only one guy was the target of that injustice.  It shows France in a very bad light, and some French chauvinists might offer an argument, similar to what you seem to be arguing, that the number of people involved was too small to merit coverage here.
 * But, it is not the size of the target group that matters, it is the amount of RS coverage.
 * For all I know there are serious RS, in Pakistan, and maybe elsewhere, who dispute this is a real phenomenon. If there are UNDUE would call for those views to be represented as well.
 * WRT your NPOV and OR concerns... Are you claiming the entire article is OR?  If you admit the topic is itself notable, but that some sentences or paragraphs are marred by OR, then shouldn't you merely be saying the article should be improved, that it needs an ORectomy and a POVectomy?  Geo Swan (talk) 23:15, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Above it has been called out that the RS does not support the article's claim of "forced": conversion. But even if it did...I also suspect if we look into christianity we will find that the KKK is a christian organization. We would not think of creating an article to say Christians burn crosses and lynch blacks. As a percentage of the 2.18 billion Christians - the KKK is negligible percentage. Therefore I consider this a damaging POV article. Lightburst (talk) 23:24, 31 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete - Article title itself appears to be WP:POVPUSH; unnecessary fork of content covered in existing articles, combined with non-neutral WP:OR, does not a valid article make. Shelbystripes (talk) 22:59, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Excuse me, but if an article has a bad article title, isn't the obvious solution to discuss renaming it something acceptable?
 * 2) I suggest your assertion that there is a problem with this article covering "content [already] covered in existing articles" shows a fundamental misunderstanding of our policies.   We don't want multiple articles all having independent sections discussing the same topic.  When multiple articles all have sections that discuss the same topic, or subtopic, they are likely to diverge, and contradict themselves.  When multiple articles all have subsections that discuss the same topic, or subtopic, that is precisely when a new article should be created.  A new article should be created, and the subsections of the earlier articles should be cut back, to provide just enough context to frame a main or see also, that points to the new article, that then becomes the central repository for the information.  That way we don't get the problem of divergence and contradiction.
 * 3) Merely making blanket claims of OR isn't convincing.  I see an article that discusses a real phenomenon, with dozens of references.  The article focusses on details, and could benefit from offering a summary of RS that address the big picture.  But there is no way that is grounds for deletion.  Geo Swan (talk) 23:33, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No, renaming the article to something more "acceptable" seems impossible, because the current article title accurately reflects the impermissible WP:POVPUSH nature of the entire article. I agree that renaming the article to something acceptable would be appropriate ... where the article title is the only problem, and curable. That’s obviously not the case here. Shelbystripes (talk) 01:01, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

*Keep there is enough coverage online about this topic, I don't see any reason to delete it. Please improve it if possible!&mdash;Spasiba5 (talk) 03:48, 1 February 2020 (UTC) Striking through CU confirmed sock's post. Doug Weller talk 13:51, 9 June 2020 (UTC) *Delete this POV CONTENTFORK per others above. TNT is the best option. 39.50.217.44 (talk) 09:34, 1 February 2020 (UTC), involved in socking. Störm  (talk)  05:59, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: even some sources have misleading titles. Forced conversions torment Pakistan's Hindus from that article: "The problem is that while some cases are actually forced conversions, others are love marriages and there is no way for us to differentiate between them." The article attempts to smear a religion based on a very small percentage. Lightburst (talk) 23:38, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep if it happens to 1,000 people a year (or even less than that), the subject is a significant one that deserves a Wikipedia article. The article already contains significant sourced information, and the sources already constitute GNG. Deletion is not cleanup. A lot of the oppose rationales read as IDONTLIKEIT. Wikipedia does not exist to promote or denigrate any religion, but state facts. If the Pakistanis want to improve their reputation they should improve their human rights record. buidhe 01:56, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep there is enough coverage online about this topic, I don't see any reason to delete it. Angus1986 (talk) 02:50, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree with that the delete opinions look alarmingly like IDONTLIKEIT. Wikipedia is not censored.  Those who want to suppress this article, on grounds of inaccuracy, claim the references don't support that forced conversions are a phenomenon, in Pakistan.  I am afraid their claims really look like the most embarrassing kind of wishful thinking.  When I read their claims that the RS did not substantiate forced conversions, a few hours ago, I acknowledged to myself I was looking at the headlines.  So, I looked at some of the references in detail.  Sure enough, the bodies of those articles concurred with the headlines.  The authors of those RS really were asserting that forced conversions were a phenomenon, in Pakistan.   If you personally don't believe that forced conversions are a phenomenon, in Pakistan remember, WP:Verify says we aim for "veritability not truth".  I'm sorry, your personal opinion that forced conversions aren't a phenomenon, in Pakistan, is irrelevant, if the RS state otherwise.   If there are reliable sources that debunk the RS that describe force conversions as a real phenomenon, that would not be an argument to suppress this article.  It would be a reason for the RS that stated the opposite side to ALSO be neutrally summarized here, bearing UNDUE in mind.   If we are going to strictly comply with the wikipedia's policies we have just two choices when the RS say something we don't personally believe (1) do our best to neutrally summarize what the RS say, even though we don't personally believe them; (2) walk away from that article, and let other contributors do all the work on it.  In the over fifteen years I have contributed to the wikipedia I have done my best to neutrally summarize thousands of references I disagreed with.  So, suck it up buttercup.  Geo Swan (talk) 06:01, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Has anyone really looked at the article or its sources? Seriously? MS    会話  11:44, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Geo Swan pretty much said what I had in mind. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:47, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep The article is well sourced! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:8100:282E:2DB7:0:0:0:1 (talk) 17:55, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep POV is not a rationale for deletion, but rather a reason for cleanup. Combined with what Geo Swan says above, I see no convincing reason to delete. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:40, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a legitimate and well sourced sub-page of Forced conversion. My very best wishes (talk) 23:26, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per Kautilya3 and Geo Swan.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:32, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:SIGCOV. I hate the blatant canvassing. I have to admit that IDONTLIKEIT. It needs work to fix the weasel words. It is something of a fork of Religious discrimination in Pakistan, but that article is already far too long. I like Pakistanis, have had colleagues from Pakistan, and saved Nursing in Pakistan (among others). But I have to agree with . It passes on the basis of significant coverage. And IMHO, Al Jazeera is more reputable than some media from the United States. Bearian (talk) 23:41, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Although this AFD seems pretty likely to close as keep, I am going to comment on and  use of POVPUSH - as per my user essay every question, every disagreement, is a teachable moment.
 * The POVPUSH wikidocument urges caution in using the term POVPUSH, because it is inflammatory. It recommends first raising one's concerns over POV on the article's talk page, or the user talk page of particular contributors.  It recommends dispute resolution as the next step, if raising one's concerns didn't work.  I suggest nominator WikiWarrior9919 and Shelbystripes misused POVPUSH, by hand-waving at it, while totally ignoring its advice.  So, I urge them to carefully re-read any wikidocuments they use in discussions, to make sure they mean what they thought they meant.  Geo Swan (talk) 00:21, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This was unnecessary derision towards two editors here, and your remarks regarding how I should handle "concerns over POV" are just, frankly, wrong. It makes no sense to raise "concerns over POV" outside of an AfD during an AfD, where one's concern is that POV irreparably permeates an article and thus supports deletion. While I'm highly sympathetic to the plight of young girls being victimized, I'm also sympathetic to issues of religious stereotyping without justification, and the sheer volume of POV in the article screams at me. The fact that I was using a term like WP:POVPUSH that I practically never use isn't a sign I'm "misusing" it (I'm not sure it has a "proper" use?), it was meant to convey how seriously I consider the POV issue to be present and fatal here. Since you've basically chosen to declare I was wrong to express my concern that the article has fatal POV issues here in the AfD, I'll elaborate on why I framed my concerns that way. As discussed above, there are inconsistencies between what the "WP:RS" say and the key primary source they draw from, a report by the Movement for Solidarity and Peace (MSP), which actually gives wide estimate ranges that may be much lower than those reported in the articles and disclaims: The Aurat Foundation just repeated the MSP's numbers in its own 2014 report (p. 16), the chief patron of the Pakistan Hindu Council (PHC) was referencing just-published numbers in the MSP report, and the Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace quoted the chief patron of PHC when he quoted MSP (p. 26). And (putting aside the other issues with these sources) all the "RS" in the article just say "estimates of 1,000" (or worse, things like "at least 1,000") when 1,000 per year is the high end of a broad estimate range given in the MSP article; estimates could equally be reported as low as 400 per year according to the same source (and they're just reporting other entities' estimates). Yet so many secondary "reliable sources," either in the article or that I've tried to find independently, end up repeating the MSP's "1,000 per year" high-end estimate as a "total" number, with no critical analysis whatsoever! The article's sources (as of now) number 1, 4, 8, 9/10, 11, 12, 14, and 15 cite either the MSP estimate, or the Aurat, CCJP, or PHC sources that just repeated the MSP estimate, as their primary statistical source. Source 7 claims that a 2015 "South Asia Partnership" report estimates 1,000 per year, even though it doesn't (though other sources that mention the SAP-PK and the 1,000 number claim the SAP-PK report was prepared "in collaboration with the Aurat Foundation", which it wasn't, and Aurat did cite to MSP in its own report, suggesting source 7 is also actually invoking the MSP source). Source 6 (the Immigration Refugee Board of Canada, or IRBC) mentions that "NGOs" have estimated "700 Christian girls are kidnapped and forced to convert" annually; the 1,000 estimate in the MSP report includes "100 to 700 victim Christian girls per year," strongly suggesting MSP and IBRC got the 700 "estimate" from the same NGO (and MSP considered 700 on the high end of available estimates). This large game of telephone, with sources repeating either the MSP, the MSP's sources, or sources the MSP relied on, is circular reporting that means none of these sources are truly independent on the topic of how often forced conversions actually happen. And cite 16 (which suggests just 265 cases per year, not 1,000) is the last in the section purporting to describe the volume of conversions. The rest of the article, and its citations, are just a short list of individual incidents each involving one or a small number of people at a time. Tying just those together to declare "forced conversions to Islam in Pakistan" is a substantial and notable issue is impermissible WP:OR. This matters a lot, when you have editors above saying things like, "if it happens to 1,000 people a year (or even less than that), the subject is a significant one that deserves a Wikipedia article."  Well... that's actually a really, really big "if" that is far, far less supported by independent reliable sources than people here are prepared to admit. I cannot find any sources truly independent from the MSP report that validate the volume of forced conversions claimed in the article. And while I support the mission of MSP, as a civil rights advocacy organization, they aren't exactly a neutral source.  It seemed obvious to me after an initial review that the above sort of issues permeated the article, though I don't usually put this much effort into researching and writing out my AfD position in this level of detail, because it's not usually necessary. I'm going to stop there; I've done enough to illustrate my concern over a lack of truly independent and neutral sources on this topic, such that once you remove the POV content, you are giving WP:UNDUE weight to what little is left by giving it a standalone article that is potentially inflammatory toward an entire nation/religion of people. I do believe there's an enormous POV pushing issue here, and that you can't remove all of it and still have enough left over for a valid standalone article.  I will say that I am sorry if anyone took my invocation of POVPUSH as an attack on them; I never intended for anyone to do so. The WP:POVPUSH page says that "calling someone a 'POV-pusher' is uncivil and pejorative," but I haven't done that. An AfD isn't (or at least shouldn't be) directed at an editor, it's directed at an article, and I intended to voice my concern that Wikipedia is or will be POV-pushing by keeping this article under the circumstances, which is meant to be a red flag as to how seriously I have POV concerns. I already know I'm in the minority here, in which case I hope someone will prove me wrong, and demonstrate that it's possible to cure what I consider deeply embedded POV issues and still have a deserving standalone article left when they're done.  As per teachable moments, I might highlight the benefit of not trying to sound like you're using AfDs to self-promote your own essays. Shelbystripes (talk) 20:45, 4 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep but definitely clean up. The article sounds so biased one way as if any non-Muslims stepping over the border at any entryway will be pounced on, attacked, and forced to convert. There is little to no mention of the attempts to protect those who do not wish to convert, and the single article I was looking at so far said the problems were mainly in the Sindh province, not everywhere. LovelyLillith (talk) 00:40, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * How about a merge to Human_rights_in_Pakistan or Religious_discrimination_in_Pakistan? Assuming that we don't apply WP:TNT here, I don't think this topic is important enough to merit its own separate article, especially considering the sketchy circumstances regarding its genesis.
 * Also I did not misuse POVPUSH. ωικιωαrrιor ᑫᑫ1ᑫ 13:40, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It's important to always take context into consideration when dealing with situations like these. I have done my part by rereading WP:POVPUSH, and you should do yours by reading User_talk:Lebronplz (the reason I even submitted this in the first place). ωικιωαrrιor ᑫᑫ1ᑫ 13:43, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, I looked at User_talk:Lebronplz, as you requested.  also seems to have lapsed from POVPUSH, in jumping to characterizing someone's efforts as a POVPUSH, without any apparent effort to discuss their POV concerns with them first.  He or she mentions ISKCON - that is the group known as the Hare Krishnas, right?  While I am personally not an admirer, I wouldn't dream of trying to censor material about their movement, or written by someone who was a member of their movement, if that material complied with NPOV and all our other policies.  You, Harshil169,  should have addressed how, or whether, the material lapsed from NPOV, preferably on the article's talk page.  Geo Swan (talk) 21:02, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , doesn't POVPUSH explicitly caution contributors that labelling other contributor's efforts instances of POVPUSH was inflammatory? Are you disputing that labelling other contributor's efforts POVPUSH was your first step in addressing your concerns?  I'd appreciate your acknowledgement this was a lapse from POVPUSH.
 * Don't the suggested remedies for a POV concern, at POVPUSH, start with a civil voicing of concern, on the talk page? Did you start by voicing your concern, on the talk page, or on a User talk page?    I'd appreciate your acknowledgement this was a lapse from POVPUSH.
 * With regard to your implied suggestion that we redirect this article, so it became a subsection of another article. That would be a terrible idea.  In my opinion, any topic worthy of a wikilink, is worthy of a standalone article, provided it has a reasonable number of references.  Wikilinks that redirect to a subsection of some other article are not properly supported by our underlying WMF software.  Bidirectional Wikilinks are a huge improvement on the uni-directional likes on the rest of the internet.  An ordinary webmaster has no idea how many webpages a link to a webpage he or she controls.  Ordinary internet links go dead, when a webmaster re-organizes the hierarchy of webpages he or she manages.  If that webpage wasn't archived at the wayback machine, a reader is screwed.  Here on the wikipedia robots create redirects, and keep them up to date, when our article titles are changed.  But wikilinks to subsections break when the title of the subsection is changed.  This is a very strong argument against suggestions like yours.   In addition the "what links here" button is undermined by stuffing two articles under one title.   The value of watchlists is undermined, when we let someone force two articles under one title, with a redirect to a subsection heading.   You made this suggestion without offering a single advantage for doing so.  Geo Swan (talk) 20:39, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - WP:POVPUSH says that characterizing edits as POV-pushing should be done cautiously. It does not say to never do it, and the fact that three (so far) editors have invoked it here suggests that this may be the extraordinary circumstance where it was be warranted to highlight extreme editorial concerns. The POVPUSH page also says that calling another editor a "POV-pusher" is pejorative, but no one here has done that or addressed any individual editor's contributions, they've only used the term to refer to the article. Here is the place to discuss those concerns, where the perceived POV issues permate the article as a whole (see my above response on this, where I go into far greater detail). If you are taking commentary regarding POV issues in the article as if it is directed toward you personally, I might recommend you read WP:OWNERSHIP and reflect on the fact that, as no editor 'owns' an article, no editor should feel personal offense toward how other editors discuss an article or its content, particularly when those discussing are not raising (or even aware of) the identity of individual contributing editors.  Shelbystripes (talk) 20:58, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * One more thing, ... Your comment "...I don't think this topic is important enough to merit its own separate article..." suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of wikipedia policy.  You seem to be choosing to ignore important points others have tried to explain to you, or just failing to understand them.  Your personal opinion on the importance of topics is irrelevant.  This is not an insult.  My personal opinions are also irrelevant.  I am not a newspaper editor, or famous historian, or anyone else we would consider a reliable source, and neither are you.  It is the opinions of reliable sources that matter, when determining notability.  Reliable sources thought the topic was worth writing about, that is all that counts.  Even if, for the sake of argument, you were convinced all those reliable sources got it wrong, WP:Verify says we aim for what is verifiable, not what is true.   This is an extremely important point, and I urge you to make sure you understand and acknowledge it.  Geo Swan (talk) 20:51, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep A highly notable topic which has received attention from both local and international media, and has affected the political discource not only in Pakistan but also in the neighboring state of India. POVFORK doesn't apply here because there is more than enough content to warrant a separate article. Bharatiya  29  15:20, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Plenty of coverage. Notable topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:35, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Important question: When you vote "keep", do you mean "leave the article as is", or "blank and rewrite an article about the same topic from scratch"? As those are two very different intentions for "keeping" the article. ωικιωαrrιor ᑫᑫ1ᑫ 17:36, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No "Keep" means "keep the article; do not delete". There is never any requirement on Wikipedia to "leave the article as is". It looks like you are fundamentally confused about the AfD process. I would advise you not to make any AfD proposals until you develop a proper understanding. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:57, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - It's notable and well-sourced. GrammarDamner (talk) 18:05, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - notability well established.--Staberinde (talk) 19:49, 6 February 2020 (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.