Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religious conversions 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 delete. The content may be made available in userspace by request at WP:REFUND if this is needed by someone desirous of using it. Stifle (talk) 11:42, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Religious conversions in Pakistan

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This page should be deleted as an attack page. The page seems to exist primarily to disparage Islam in Pakistan, and contains material that is entirely negative in tone. It is superficially well-sourced; but much of the material appears to have been selectively harvested from other Wikipedia pages - this is shown by reference names (ref name=), access dates, and that some of the URLs are dead. If the creator had looked at the URLs he/she would have seen that they were dead and either not used them, or used a web archive to find the contents.

The real subject of this article is forced conversion to Islam in Pakistan. Other articles already cover this topic from a neutral point of view (e.g Religious Minorities in Pakistan and Hinduism in Pakistan).

The logs show that pages called Forced conversion to Islam in Pakistan were deleted on 28 November 2019 and 5 June 2020. The logs show that a page called Religious conversions in Pakistan was started in February 2020, but later changed to a redirect and deleted on 5 June 2020. -- Toddy1 (talk) 13:11, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The article should not be speedy deleted as an attack or a negative unsourced biography of a living person, because... (all the contents are well sourced and every Pakistan related article seems like an attack piece simply because those articles are based on actual facts - this is just another similar article. We need a unique article for Religious conversions in Pakistan as conversions are unique in Pakistan and matter related to conversions cannot be a part of another article.)
 * An admin, has already declined to speedy delete the article here.&mdash;Dr2Rao (talk) 13:38, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Z1720 (talk) 14:04, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Z1720 (talk) 14:04, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If I have put up anything without citing a reference please let me know. However, every Pakistan related article seems like an attack piece simply because those articles are based on actual facts - this is just another similar article.&mdash;Dr2Rao (talk) 14:23, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I have added what could be a response for each sentence as well. Whatever happened to Rinkle Kumari finally, whatever happened to the 15 year old kidnapped in January this year in the court, the failed Bill to outlaw conversions etc. - all have been added with citations.&mdash;Dr2Rao (talk) 14:34, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I saw the articles mentioned by, Religious Minorities in Pakistan and Hinduism in Pakistan which he claims are "neutral point of view" and they also mention the attacks on minorities, so this article should also be considered to be "neutral point of view".&mdash;Dr2Rao (talk) 15:56, 31 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Religion in Pakistan, until such a time as someone can write an article that isn't filled with OR, and can demonstrate that it has been treated as a topic in reliable sources. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:24, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect to what ? All the sentences of that article have references cited so why do you call it OR? I will try to change it if you tell me how.&mdash;Dr2Rao (talk) 01:32, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The point you keep missing is that it isn't sufficient for content to have a citation; the citation must clearly support all of the content it is used for. That is not the case with respect to many citations here, and it has frequently not been the case with content you have added. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:24, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I copied sentences along with the cited references from other articles and it is possible that those sentences were not formed as they should have been. I will correct the sentences to match the citations but please don't delete the article.&mdash;Dr2Rao (talk) 04:50, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I hope that you can also point out some sentences that need correction on the talk page of the article.&mdash;Dr2Rao (talk) 05:09, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No, sorry, I have no time to check every sentence of an article that was deleted because of how bad it was. This needs to be started from scratch if it's to exist at all. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:18, 1 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep The article clearly passes WP:N and WP:V. As for the nominator's rationale that it should be part of two already existing articles, conversions and minorities are not the same. However, I do feel that Forced Conversions ... would be a more suitable title, but that can be handled at a later stage. As for neutrality, NPOV related issues can be fixed, they don't warrant a deletion discussion. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 23:15, 1 September 2020 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Rsrikanth05 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)
 * I did not see this link till Toddy1 posted it here. I don't check where all I've been pinged everyday. I only check my own talk page. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 08:51, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you explain how it meets WP:GNG? The sources in the article talk about individual events of conversion and not an actual topic of "religious conversion in Pakistan". I don't see any scholarly sources that give the purported topic significant coverage.VR talk 05:43, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , so can you justify this article on New York Times? It talks about dozens of Hindus getting converted - hence a forceful conversion. Then there is this scholarly article which you demanded by the Modern Diplomacy and few others like this and this. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 06:34, 2 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - as per my my reply to VR here. I do incline towards calling this as "Forceful Conversions" - because that's what most of the references I have cited says. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 06:36, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - move should be initiated to Forced conversion to Islam in Pakistan post this discussion closure. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 07:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - There are already many sources cited in the article which makes the article notable. About concerns about it being an "attack page", there already exist a page named Ghar Wapsi which focuses on religious conversion from other religion to Hinduism in India which mostly just cites "individual events of conversion". If someone (including nominator) thinks this article is biased, they can always add constructive viewpoints. Manasbose (talk) 07:19, 2 September 2020 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Manasbose (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)


 * Comment - The page named Forced conversion to Islam in Pakistan is deleted, but the discussion page says "The result was keep". What happened here? Manasbose (talk) 07:28, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , the log says: "22:42, 5 June 2020 deleted page Forced conversion to Islam in Pakistan (G10: Attack page (TW))". So you'd need to ask Bishonen.   Sandstein   07:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll explain. Forced conversion to Islam in Pakistan was speedy deleted per G5 (creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban) by on 28 November 2019, then recreated on 27 January 2020 by  (a sock), then in February 2020 taken to Articles for deletion/Forced conversion to Islam in Pakistan, where it was kept. Then I speedy deleted it as an attack page on 5 June 2020. Complicated, I know. I had missed the existence of the AfD. Nevertheless, my speedy deletion was upheld at Deletion review/Log/2020 June 9. Bishonen &#124; tålk 08:52, 2 September 2020 (UTC).
 * Delete and focus on Draft:Forced conversion to Islam in Pakistan This page (just like the version deleted as attack page earlier) involves violation of NPOV, WP:OR and misrepresents sources. There is consensus to create a Forced conversion to Islam in Pakistan per DRV held here and the draft is already ready at Draft:Forced conversion to Islam in Pakistan. But this article is misleading and violates WP:COPYVIO as well since it failed to give any credit to my draft from where it copied lots of content. Tessaracter (talk) 15:21, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * "Consensus to create a Forced conversion to Islam in Pakistan per DRV held here"? I'm surprised you think so, Tessaracter. The DRV was well attended, with 16 users commenting. Three of them suggested the article be recreated: 1) "a reasonable article could be written about this topic, but the one that was deleted wasn't it", 2) "Feel free to recreate", and 3) "Recreate with different content, per WP:TNT... the subject still deserves an article, just a new one, written better with better sources". The other thirteen people offered no kind of recommendation to recreate the article, or agreement with the idea. What kind of consensus is that? Bishonen &#124; tålk 17:43, 2 September 2020 (UTC).
 * I merely highlighted Sandstein's closure of the DRV: "Speedy deletion endorsed, but recreation permitted. Consensus is that the speedy deletion was correct on account of various severe content and socking problems, but that as per the AfD, a neutral article written by editors in good standing could be had under this title. I am therefore changing the page protection from full to semi to allow such editing to take place (e.g. based on the draft that is now available)".[ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2020_June_9&diff=963016125&oldid=963014916] Deletion was endorsed but recreation was also allowed per consensus on DRV. Tessaracter (talk) 20:13, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete per nominator.ytpks896 (talk) 20:27, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep I believe that we cannot write about enticed religious conversions in any other article which is why we need this article.&mdash;Dr2Rao (talk) 09:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge to Freedom of religion in Pakistan. Not sure why this merge isn't any easy solution. Religious conversions in India already redirects to Freedom of religion in India after all. Aza24 (talk) 21:16, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Coverage in human rights sources and high-circulation newspaper sources such as The New York Times. I don't see a point in merging this to a general article about religious minorities in Pakistan, the scope and depth of this topic justifies a WP:SUBARTICLE. The page seems to exist primarily to disparage Islam in Pakistan: this deletion rationale in particular is weird and could be said for any article that contains information that can be perceived as negative towards Islam or Muslim communities, even articles such as this that detail human rights issues. WP:NOTCENSORED — Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive. --Pudeo (talk) 07:44, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   10:25, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete: The nomination is that this is an attack page. Research shows there is a lot of supporting data. My take on this is that a lot of vague, instantiation of cherrypicking has been placed in this page. There is no thesis-antithesis of for and against in the article, it is all cherrypicking the awful outcomes of forced conversions. Research shows that there are many organisations at the forefront of this fighting this very issue, keeping it in the eyes of the world media, keeping the call to toleration of minorities in Pakistan at the forefront. While the article talks about a bill directed towards minorities it does not do any more than that. Off with the cherrypicking. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:53, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * cherrypicking the awful outcomes of forced conversions Is there even a happy outcome for a forced conversion? What kind of a NPOV end result are you looking for? I still don't get the attack page argument. A lot of editors feel, very strongly, that any picture of Mohammad in his biography disparages Islam. As for an article detailing the human rights situation of a vulnerable minority, I'm sure the world's largest religion can handle a bit of critical coverage of the actions of some of its adherents.--Pudeo (talk) 19:27, 8 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep This article needs to be better organized and renamed, but the information is sufficiently sourced. --- FULBERT (talk) 13:38, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The editor who wrote the article just copied many of the citations from other articles - he/she almost never bothered to read the stuff he/she was citing. He partially admitted it here.


 * Delete 99% of the sources in the article seem to about single events that are connected in the Wikipedia article, but not necessarily in the sources themselves. For instance a shop keeper that made his employees convert to Islam after sales at his store declined. Which isn't really a "Pakistan" thing per say though or even anything having to do with a broad overview of religious conversation. Which is what Wikipedia is suppose to be about. As such, I'd consider this article similar to ones having to "Mass protests in Latin America" and similar ones that used barely related things to argue they were all connected and influenced each other. If I'm remembering correctly all those articles where deleted. Unlike those articles, this ones uses references that even say themselves are speculative when it comes to forced conversations and even the subject of the articles. For instance "25 Hindu girls abducted every month, claims HRCP official." Also, some of the references say forced conversation (or even conversation) isn't even a thing "Hindu Girls Were Not Forcibly Converted To Islam, Says Pak Court" and " "Hindu sisters not forcibly converted, allowed to live with husbands: Pakistan court." A lot of the sources are primary also. Ultimately, this article seems more like a personal essay that's all over the place and draws vague conclusions that could apply to anywhere and anything, more then the article is neutral encyclopedic overview of either religious conversation. Let alone religious conversation in Pakistan. At the minimum TNT should apply, but clearly should still be deleted on other grounds. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:59, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep But it need to be balanced. Pakistani cricketer Yousuf Youhana converted from Christianity to Islam, there was no force. He accepted Islam willingly (Alhamdulillah). However, we should not ignore cases of Christians and Hindus converting to Islam by exertion. Zakaria1978 عوامی نيشنل پارٹی زندہ باد (talk) 00:15, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete as a page that easily meets WP:CONTENTFORK, or redirect at best. As noted above, the vast majority of the content is a collection of news headlines and does not do anything more than relaying what should have been dealt with in the existing articles concerning Hinduism in Pakistan, Minorities in Pakistan or Freedom of religion in Pakistan. As such, its existence outlives its utility, making it redundant.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 15:44, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Rename to Forced conversion to Islam in Pakistan. Zoozaz1 (talk) 04:38, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Rename It should be renamed to Forced conversion to Islam in Pakistan. LearnIndology (talk) 10:26, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Please explain how this "renaming" would allay the concerns mentioned in this AfD?  Mar4d  ( talk ) 16:50, 12 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep human rights articles are typically kept when substantiated to this degree.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:44, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * What's a human rights thing about people willingly converting from one religion to another? Because that's what most of this article is about. It's not about "forced conversion." Even if it does have a few examples. Which is also why renaming it to Forced conversion to Islam in Pakistan wouldn't work IMO. Otherwise, Forced conversion to Islam in Pakistan are covered perfectly fine already in other articles. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:54, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It doesn't have to be a forced conversion for this to be a human rights issue. Converts may be treated differently.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:49, 15 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Has a bias background, and the main purpose of the article was to defame Pakistan rather than discussing about core issues like religious extremism (considering that this info could have easily been added/merged to any Religion-related Pakistani article). I don't care if it's well maintained or written. To me, the actual reason of the existence of the article is to revive a previously deleted article which had been deleted for being clearly bias. I don't mean to be harsh, so apologies if some of you find my response to be harsh. Pakieditor (talk) 20:36, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete (or redirect/merge to Religion in Pakistan). Though pretending to be dispassionately neutral, the article, with its exclusive interest in cherry picked news sources on instances of forced conversions, is a classic attack page. Doubtless there are forced religious conversions in Pakistan but the causes and consequences of those are better covered in the Religion in Pakistan page where they can be properly contextualized. Assuming, of course, that the article creator and the various people !voting keep want to actually take the trouble of looking for reliable sources rather than merely entering "forced conversions in Pakistan" into a google search bar. --RegentsPark (comment) 21:12, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete and apply TNT per nominator & arguments presented by others. Nomad on Road (talk) 01:05, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete (or redirect/merge to Religion in Pakistan). Ameen Akbar (talk) 19:55, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete there's already articles that discuss this topic or mention it.--AdillAdell (talk) 20:54, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree with the nominator about this qualifying as an attack piece as per attack page. But the article subject itself makes zero sense. Employing the same logic, every country could be assigned similar article on "conversions". Not to mention the clear bias where almost every entry is based on sensationalist media headlines articles in the last 20 years. This does not belong in an encyclopedia. KamranHassanUK (talk) 21:31, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Seems reasonable, the article has biased approach. Looks like an attack page, especially when there are a couple of other articles where the same thing is written or can be added if not already. USaamo (t@lk) 13:06, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - It's an WP:ATTACK WP:CFORK, the content of which can be addressed elsewhere in other articles already mentioned above.Ainty Painty (talk) 14:57, 20 September 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.