Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singaporean response to 2005 Kashmir earthquake


 * 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was KEEP. Linuxbeak | Talk 21:52, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Singaporean response to 2005 Kashmir earthquake
A response to 2005 Kashmir earthquake. I think it would be sufficient to just have 2005_Kashmir_earthquake instead a separate page for Singapore's response. __earth 08:08, 10 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete per nomination. __earth 08:08, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. This is a practice established during Hurricane Katrina. There are at least 25 articles spin-off from the main article Hurricane Katrina. At least 7 articles on "Country X response to Hurricane Katrina". Nobody complained about that. This is a far worse disaster, I see no reason for a lesser treatment, and please help to counter the systemic bias. There is no way to transfer the current content in Singaporean response to 2005 Kashmir earthquake to the main article 2005 Kashmir earthquake without unbalancing the main article. I'm surprise at this nomination made without first discussing, and I appreciate if the nominator can state clearly his reason for deletion, "I think it would be sufficient ..." is just too vague. Is the nominator calling for a "merge" of content or simply a "delete"? --Vsion 09:33, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I vote for deletion if you missed the first time I stated it. __earth 09:48, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Please state the reason for the nomination (vanity, nn, hoax, etc.), as per Deletion policy --Vsion 09:55, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Such a minor branch of a subject that it doesn't deserve an article. For Katrina, it might be justifiable because the article is too long. 2005 Kashmir earthquake is quite short compared to Hurricane Katrina. Kashmir is just 18k while katrina is almost 60k. And yes, there's a way to incorporate the article's subject without unbalancing the main article. We could removed the condolence speech and simply state what kind of aid is being offered, just like other entry for other countries that are offering aid. __earth 10:11, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Please help to countering the systemic bias in Wikipedia, and also keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopaedia. The main article need to focus on the main event and main relief operation. This article, on the other hand, focuses specifically on Singapore's reaction to the disaster and contributions to the relief operation which now involve several fronts. --Vsion 10:36, 10 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete due to fact that whatever is in the main article should sufficiently cover it, or redirect to said article. -- NSLE | Talk 09:59, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Changing vote to keep after second thoughts and comments made by Huaiwei. -- NSLE | Talk 04:30, 11 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete as per __earth Manik Raina 10:25, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep as per Vision. I see nothing that this article has contravened in terms of Deletion policy. If the only issue is that this content could fit into the main article, and this can only be done so by removing content, then I would certainly think this is setting a dangerous precedent.--Huaiwei 17:38, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Vision. Davewild 19:29, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete68.196.170.32 19:52, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * If it is a "strong" delete, then I suppose you must have strong reasons to think it so. Do share with us what they are, please?--Huaiwei 20:43, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Also, it'd be better if you could sign your name. Jesushaces
 * Strong Keep. There is no concrete reason why this is listed for deletion.  There is clearly enough information on the Singaporean response for it to have its own article. -Nameneko 23:17, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep frivolous nomination. Trollderella 00:36, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Vsion and Huaiwei. Really, _earth, does it bug you that much? Jesushaces 01:14, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete IMHO, we should start out with a separate "International response to Kashmir earthquake" article, and only when that gets too big to contain all the information, should separate articles be created for individual countries. Also, what is so special about Singapore's response among all other countries, that it warrants a separate article? --Berkut 01:37, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. 2005 Kashmir earthquake is in a edit mode with rapid changes, so spliting out specific, well-defined sub-topics is a common practice to help contributors keep the main article focused on the overall rescue and relief operation. The relief effort is a significant event in Singapore, because of the large Pakistani, South Asian and Muslim community in the country. As we strive for a broader, global perspective in wikipedia, prejudging and suppressing X-Country's perspective at this stage is counter-productive. --Vsion 03:05, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, makes an excellent sub-article to the "international response" section of the main article. No reason for deletion has been given. Kappa 03:10, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, though I suggest making this a subarticle off the article International response to 2005 Kashmir earthquake as was done for International response to Hurricane Katrina. Alex.tan 04:15, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - this is simply damaging the reputation of a legitimate issue, and I suspect earth simply has a strong systemic bias. -- Natalinasmpf 04:24, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I doubt its systemic bias. If there were, wouldn't larger countries like the US which offers $50 mil + several military equipment and China which offers $6.2 mil + dogs have pages of their own? The point is, the main article is sufficient. If there were a bias, this nominee is because it's the only page of its kind concerning Kashmir earthquake. __earth 06:18, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * If you think the idea of having separate articles for certain countries is pointless, look at Hurricane Katrina, which has a subarticle on international relief efforts as well as individual articles for Canadian, French, Mexican, Dutch, Russian, Singaporean, and Swedish responses to the disaster. Besides, if you'd like to start other nation-specific relief effort articles, you're free to do so.
 * -Nameneko 07:37, 11 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep but merging with "international response" is a valid measure as well. Kahlen 13:54, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: The article can be kept as of now, but it will make no sense till either - 1. it is a part of International response to 2005 Kashmir earthquake like Alex.tan says, or 2. someone takes the initiative to write simialar articles for other countries. If this remains the only article of its type, then there won't be much point. In this regard, the corresponding articles for Hurricane Katrina are not "brilliant prose" themselves, IMHO. Saksham 03:37, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Conditional keep. Saksham is right on the money for this one. If someone else writes other articles about the international response to the earthquake, just leave it as is. Otherwise, move to a section of International response to 2005 Kashmir earthquake. Tito xd (?!?) 06:40, 12 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment: I respectfully disagree with the comments that this article can only exist on condition that other "Country-X reponse" articles are created. There is no wikipedia policy and guideline that impose such a condition. While I can easily satisfy it by creating another article, I disagree with such a condition that is based on editorial preferences, which are not grounds for AfD. Let me state clearly the reasons for keeping this article:
 * The content is NPOV, factual, verifiable and notable.
 * The presented facts received wide coverage not just in local news media, but also reported by AFP, Reuters, Xinhua, as well.
 * Keep in mind that there isn't just one perspective looking at this event. There are X-country's perspectives as well. And I don't deny that this article is about Singapore's perspective. That's nothing wrong with it as we strive for a comprehensive, global perspective in wikipedia.
 * This article is related not just to the 2005 Kashmir earthquake event, it is also part of the comprehensive coverage to provide the knowledge and understanding on the demographics (which has large number of foreign residents), the importance of foreign relations, and the preoccupation with internal security and civil defence in the small country. The relief effort are therefore significant in Singapore. I cannot say for other countries, but they may or may not relate as much to the event in South Asia. Therefore, whether there exists other articles is irrelevant.
 * If you only want to read summarized description of the main event, then of course this article is of little interest to you. But for others who wish for a detailed understanding of the disaster or to study the politics of South East Asia, they would find this full article more useful than just a one-paragraph abstract.
 * This is not a loop-sided contribution by a user, I have contributed much more to the main article 2005 Kashmir earthquake than this one; and many entries in 2005_Kashmir_earthquake were added by me. We may wish there are other countries' articles as well, but deleting this article is really a step backward, not forward. There are alot more work to be done as we aim for a comprehensive coverage; but as long as this content is encyclopedic, there is no reason to remove it.
 * In its currents state, there is no way to merge this article into another without deleting most of the content.
 * Finally, the stated reason for this nomination is really not valid for AfD, according to Deletion policy. --Vsion 17:30, 12 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep, as per reasons above. - Mailer Diablo 12:29, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep per Vsion. --Andylkl (talk) 11:57, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, just like Hurricane Katrina articles, this one should not only be kept, but more should be made. Just look at all the articles on Katrina. -Tcwd (talk) 17:47, 15 October 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.