Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Operation Ababeel


 * 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 delete. Missvain (talk) 16:45, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Operation Ababeel

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This subject appears to be a hoax. A search for "Operation Ababeel" online, including the myriad of news sources, books and military publications, reveals nothing notable or verifiable about this operation or that it was ever planned, other than some obscure Indian references. Not a single reliable Pakistani source is there discussing this preemptive operation. Given the surprising lack of coverage, this should either be deleted outright or redirected to the Siachen conflict explaining its limited references made primarily in Indian sources.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 11:51, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  11:54, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  11:54, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  11:55, 20 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete no RS provided that this planned operation even existed and not even basic details provided. The fact that the See Also section is longer than the content says it all. Mztourist (talk) 14:39, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete I see no attempt made, not even a hint of it, to present a neutral point of view in this article as per Wikipedia guidelines. WP:NPOV states...'Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it.' This article repeats all Indian side's propaganda and point of view with no attempt made to balance it by describing Pakistani point of view or also using Pakistani sources as references. Ngrewal1 (talk) 17:25, 20 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Retain the article: Most of the objections above itself seem biased and loaded with vague and coatail objections. Instead of refuting those one by one above. I went ahead and significantly expanded the article with the reliable, reputed and verifiable official Pakistani Army sources, Indian Army sources as well as 3rd party sources. Feel free to review and further enhance the article. If you are inclined please also create an article on Pakistan's relatively successful Operation Yarmuk for Baltoro range after taking some text from my edits to Ababeel article. I am not the original creator or writer of the text in Operation Ababeel. Wiki bot left a message on my talkpage regarding this deletion discussion, and I ended up enhancing this article created/edited by other editors. I have no other account, I am a long timer IP. Regards. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 15:44, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Dear, thanks for attempting to improve the article. While the Pakistan Army Aviation source makes passing mention of it (three times to be exact) and is a good place to start, it is worth noting that it refers to Ababeel as a military exercise rather than an "operation". This is important to note in the context of the tone of the article, as an exercise usually involves logistical movement and preparedness as opposed to an operation which is geared towards combat. This is an inherent issue that was, and still is, present in the article, such as the infobox and will need to be rectified along with a possible renaming of the article. I would also appreciate if you could provide links and page numbers to some of the references you added, as this was not done (e.g. a reference is made to Musharraf's In The Line of Fire: A Memoir, but there is no page number as to where a reference is made to Ababeel). Please go through WP:CITE to see how to correctly format references. I look forward to seeing you assuage some of these issues. Best,  Mar4d  ( talk ) 16:47, 21 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete or redirect to Siachen conflict.--Ameen Akbar (talk) 09:58, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Agree with Ameen Akbar's argument above. When a well-sourced (with 97 references) main article on the subject Siachin conflict already exists, there is no need to 'keep' this poorly-written article. Ngrewal1 (talk) 17:08, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per Mar4d. Jushyosaha604 (talk) 03:24, 28 December 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.