Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Bill, 2019


 * 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 speedy keep. snow keep: The event is not a media sensation. Unlike the nomination, the bill, and the implementation of it, is significant on historical levels which is explicitly mentioned in multiple reliable sources. It is not logical to lengthen any other article, just to split it later. For the claimed over-categorisation issue, kindly see Saurashtra (state) and related articles. In the light of recent events (in reliable sources), and rationale put forward by "keep" commenters, I am using common sense; and invoking snowball clause, and WP:IAR to close this discussion as "not deleted". — usernamekiran (talk)  17:03, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Bill, 2019

 * – ( View AfD View log  Bill,_2019 )

1)The event is very recent so its obvious that it is covered by many news portal. 2)But this is a bill for Kashmir conflict. 3) So this bill can come under Kashmir conflict page. 4)This bill scraps article 370, then why are we not putting this in the Article 370 wiki page. Why are we making a whole page just for a bill. The purpose of bill is controversial and it's related to Kashmir conflict. And the bill scraps Article 370. The bill itself is bot important in any way. What bill does is important and we already got wiki pages for these. The bill itself may seem a big issue today but in the matter of few week all that left important is what bill does. Then what is the need to make it a whole new page on it. User:Edward Zigma User talk:Edward Zigma 08:23, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2019 August 6. —cyberbot I  Talk to my owner :Online 08:47, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:57, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  D Big X ray ᗙ  09:27, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  D Big X ray ᗙ  09:27, 6 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Strong keep - Topic with extensive national and international coverage. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:36, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You cant just make a wikipedia page out of every topic. This should go under the Kashmir conflict page.Edward Zigma (talk) 08:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Strong delete - This article clearly qualifies for Overcategorisation. And according to rule number 11 of reasons for deletion of pages in Deletion policy no article should be overcategorised. We already got Kashmir conflict amd Article 370 page and this page should merge with them. There is no need to make a saperate page on it.Edward Zigma (talk) 10:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - Significant impact to India/Kashmir/India and Pakistan relations. Many have been trying to get a direct link to this discussion and hence extremely relevant as seen from news coverage. Sherenk1 (talk) 09:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you explain why it should not merged with Kashmir conflict. Its just a bill. Are we going to make wikipedia pages on every bill getting passed now?Edward Zigma (talk) 09:41, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * First of all, you can't keep voting every time you respond to someone. Second, I have already given my reasons above, it is significant in its own way and hence deserves a page.Sherenk1 (talk) 09:44, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * So does was Brexit bills. They are kept under the Brexit pages. This is a bill. The matter related to the bill is important, not the bill. The matter is already there as Kashmir conflict. I understand it is a majot bill and all the tantrums. But this is still a bill. We already got a wikipedia page in hand for that. Obviously the bill is associated with Kashmir conflict. Bill itself has no existence. So it's better to remove this page.Edward Zigma (talk) 09:58, 6 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep per Kautilya3 it is a major bill  with national and international coverage and splits Kashmir into  State of Jammu and Kashmir into two Union Territories, one to be called Jammu and Kashmir, and the other Ladakh. Also as per WP:RAPID a very major news which is developing.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:38, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * But its still a bill for Kashmir conflict. There are already pages out there such as Kashmir conflict and article 370. This is a clear case of Overcategorisation. No need to keep such pageEdward Zigma (talk) 09:58, 6 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep This is a significant development in its own right that is attracting extensive reporting. Ergo a separate article from Kashmir conflict is appropriate. I don't see how WP:OVERCATEGORISATION has any relevance. Bondegezou (talk) 10:08, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Nope. The article has no clear importance in itself. The article should be merge with Kashmir conflict or Article 370.

The bill is related to the topics, the bill itself is not a topic. Clearly a case of WP:OVERCATEGORISATION.Edward Zigma (talk) 10:21, 6 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Snow keep as the nomination was made before the article allowed to get developed within few hours. Maybe WP:TROUT the nominator for wasting time of editors. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:10, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Coz bills are related to matters like conflicts, rape, or social problems. So if a bill getting passed is categorised in that related article. Should we start making wikipedia pages on every bill getting passed. Brexit bills were passed too but there was a consensus that bills should be categorised in the particular matter related to a topic. A clear case of WP:OVERCATEGORISATION.Edward Zigma (talk) 10:21, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Who the hell said bills are related to only conflicts, rapes or social problems? Every law is a bill at first. You might want to argue on why this particular bill is failing any of the notability criteria. Or else you can leave the debate; we have heard you. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:35, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This particular bill is important related to Kashmir conflict and Article 370. The best place for this bill is in those article. I dont even understand what is the need to make a whole wiki page for a bill which has its importance in other matter. A clear and best example of WP:OVERCATEGORISATION. If bill standalone has any significance then we can allow that. But the bill itself is related to article 370 and kashnir conflict. So it's best place lies there. No need to create a single wiki page for every bill passed. If you can explain then argue ,"Why a bill that itself is based on article 370 needs a new standalone page on its own?". We know the bill is important, controversial that's why its best place lie in those article. Not as a standalone page. Any expireanced editor will tag this as a clear case of WP:OVERCATEGORISATION.Edward Zigma (talk) 11:19, 6 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment I cannot see   making an edit in this page   and  this edit shows  making the edit on his behalf.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah! Am also trying to figure whats happening here. Are they WP:SOCKs? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:33, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No. AnUnnamedUser had nothing to do with it. Edward Zigma just copied the signature and deletion rationale from Articles_for_deletion/International_rankings_of_India, which is why the first revision of this AFD looks so weird. Pinkbeast (talk) 11:57, 6 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment: What a bad reason to nominate for deletion. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 10:38, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you tell me a single reason why not to keep this article in Kashmir conflict and Article 370. Are we going to make wiki pages on bills getting proposed now. Really what a bad arguement you have.Edward Zigma (talk) 10:53, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Please see the template on Indian legislation on the page you created...(Template:Indian legislation) there is an entire section for Bills. You should propose deletion for all of the Wikipedia pages for Indian bills.DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 11:57, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

1)The event is very recent so its obvious that it has been covered by many news portal. 2)But this is a bill for Kashmir conflict. 3) So this bill can come under Kashmir conflict page. 4)This bill scraps article 370, then why are we not putting this in the Article 370 wiki page. Why are we making a whole page just for a bill. The purpose of bill is controversial and it's related to Kashmir conflict. And the bill scraps Article 370. The bill itself is not important in any way.Ultimately the bill is just related to Kashmir conflict and Article 370. This bill can be clubbed under those without any issue. What bill does is important and we already got wiki pages for these. The bill itself may seem a big issue today but in the matter of few week all that left important is what bill does. Then what is the need to make it a whole new page on it.Edward Zigma (talk) 11:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC) 11:44, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment:- Reasons why this bill qualify for WP:OVERCATEGORISATION
 * Snow keep Usually I would prefer to have an article on the resultant act, but in this case the bill is sufficiently notable to have its own article, if it gets passed, it should be moved to the appropriate "... Act" title. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 11:44, 6 August 2019 (UTC).
 * Strong Keep I am creator of page. What a bad and unrelated reason to nominate? The page no where mentions the statistics and person nominated here by saying this is list of statistics. This bill will decide the future of Indian Jammu and Kashmir which is historical in itself. Bill received enough coverage in WP:RS to pass WP:GNG and it can have Wikipedia page. The user who put template on this article has mostly made edits after I did any edit. You can check his contribution section for comparison. Also, original template he put was when I submitted one article for deletion. He copied it and pasted here. Clearly, it shows WP:DLC and I will demand two way interaction ban with him. And yes,, if you are commenting on every one's contradictory view here then you must read WP:BLUD. --  Harshil  want to talk? 11:46, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Zigma, the over-categorization provision at WP:DP applies to categories, not articles. It cannot be logically applied to an article. I think you're suggesting this should be merged into the larger article as it is a sub-event of the larger conflict. However, it is ordinary to create articles for components of a larger subject, such as battles within a war or even charges within a battle, provided there is sufficient verifiable information to support a stand-alone article.  GreatCaesarsGhost   11:47, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep: This bill is very significant, Even in the stage of bill it has it's own political and diplomatic impact. With all due respect, Nominator's comments stating "The bill itself may seem a big issue today but in the matter of few week all that left important is what bill does." is just an assumption. Bill was introduced amidst large mobilization of army, house arrest of former chief ministers of the state, making Non-Jammu & Kasmir residents leave the state, and lot of such pre-match. It stirred a lot of reactions both positive and negative from international & diplomatic sections. Pakistan parliament had an emergency session to condemn introduction of this bill. I hope fellow Wikimedians understand this is not one of the other bills and this is a major event/milestone in this geo-political region. --Pavan santhosh.s (talk) 12:12, 6 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep The bill has enough significant coverage and material to warrant a separate article. The nominator has not made a single valid argument in any of the dozen comments they have posted so far. Snow close to avoid further wastage of community time. Dee  03  12:17, 6 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep and propose close. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 13:35, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Nomination is based on fundamental misunderstanding of the facts. This law splits J&K into the two territories of J&K and Ladakh, and this article should be similar to like Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014 and Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000. A previous presidential order nullified certain aspects of Article 370A. The two things were announced at around the same time so they are being conflated by news outlets. But the impact of this bill, not discussed enough, is huge for Ladakhis: I have created a talk section for that. 체셔🐈 (talk) 13:42, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Notable major event in a critical and controversial area, with significant coverage in reliable sources. The article is appropriate to capture the event and developments related to it. I expect there to be great interest in this bill and a separate article that is able to explore the details and ramifications will be of value to our readers. The other articles that were suggested for the content are already lengthy. It's possible that in a year or two, depending on how events play out, it might be best at that time to merge this article, but right now, we should keep this article. Noting that I came to this AFD because the nominator pinged me on my talk page since we had agreed on a previous dispute on an India-related article and, I suspect, thought I would agree with him on this one. Schazjmd   (talk)  13:57, 6 August 2019 (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.