Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rape in the Kashmir conflict


 * 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 Procedural close. Deletion is not being proposed here, and so this is the wrong venue. If you want to propose a merger, do so at the article talk page. Keep in mind that a spinoff article is not necessarily a problem. You need to demonstrate redundancy, and/or NPOV issues, for a merger to make sense. Vanamonde (talk) 08:58, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Rape in the Kashmir conflict

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article, created on 19 April violates WP:SYNTH and shares its origins with Rape in Jammu and Kashmir, which was redirected and merged to Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir after consensus.

I and Fowler have observed that this article is a fork of Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir, Human rights abuses in Kashmir, and was created without expanding these existing article.

WP:CFORK:

''A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid a neutral point of view (including undue weight), often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. All POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia, as they avoid consensus building and therefore violate one of our most important policies.''

Exactly, this fork article has been target of gross POV pushing, anyone can view history of article and confirm that it happens just every single day that one editor removes all reliably sourced(Routledge, Oxford) information about rapes in Pakistan Kashmir(WP:CENSOR, WP:IDONTLIKEIT) even after knowing that Kashmir under Pakistan is part of Kashmir conflict, and then other editor would argue how sources about Kashmir Conflict doesn't mention rape in Pakistan, when dozens of them do.

For ceasing such disruption, page move took place, and there was no consensus to change the title thus article was reverted to original title. But that was not the end, now a couple of editors, who didn't had their preferred page title are hoping another page move request in place of dropping the stick, just because they don't want to deny Pakistan to be a part of Kashmir conflict, yet continue censor information about incidents in Pakistan. As such, POV pushing and edit warring never ends.

Not to mention this article has been unnecessarily expanded, for example the whole laundry list of non-notable incidents.

Since the article includes about 35 sources,(per this version) it could be redirected and merged with Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir, Human rights abuses in Azad Kashmir, Human rights abuses in Kashmir. These 3 articles are still small. Capitals00 (talk) 05:59, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

*Support redirect and merge to Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir, Human rights abuses in Azad Kashmir, Human rights abuses in Kashmir as proposer. Capitals00 (talk) 06:01, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as proposer. I already have the copy of the article saved on sandbox since last week and the title of this article is being frequently disputed by other editors on talk page even after no consensus on page move, I believe that delete is the only fair option. Any important content can be drawn from sandbox. Capitals00 (talk) 08:47, 12 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose The topic of conflict rape and sexual violence in Indian administered Kashmir during the insurgency since 1989 is a notable topic which is discussed in numerous reliable sources. As such it satisfies the requirement of WP:GNG. This topic is about a particular form of war crime which is different in scope to other human rights abuses. This article is like other articles such as Rape during the Bosnian War, Rape during the occupation of Japan and so on. Topic has been given coverage in so many important and reputable sources that its a stand-alone topic. (example from women’s rights director at Human Rights Watch. - Human Rights Watch first documented sexual violence in conflict in 1993 when we published a report about how Indian security forces in Kashmir used rape to brutalise women and punish their communities, accused of sympathizing with separatist militants. Since then, we have investigated and documented rape in conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Colombia, Somalia, Iraq, Sierra Leone, Kosovo, Cote d’Ivoire, Guinea, and Haiti.Since that first report, the international community has made significant progress in recognizing the prevalence of sexual violence and taken steps to address it: rape in conflict is prosecuted as a war crime and a crime against humanity ).
 * The users on the talkpage were also in the midst of a consensus-building discussion when this RFC was filed. Problematics (talk) 08:29, 12 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Close AfD is a forum for deletion and deletion is not here being proposed. Thincat (talk) 08:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Since my name has been mentioned in the statement of the RfC (without my consent), I am making a comment. It is true that I had originally supported a merger, but I subsequently withdrew from the process. I really have no wish to go back. It is also true that the creators of the "Rape in Kashmir " page have overstepped their mandate. However, the Indian government is not innocent either, having committed gross human rights abuses in Kashmir, which very likely include rape and murder.  I will let the POV warriors on both sides duke it out.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  08:51, 12 May 2017 (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.