Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Territorial disputes of India and Nepal


 * 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The result was keep / withdrawn by nominator. ~Super Hamster  Talk Contribs 09:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Territorial disputes of India and Nepal

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No links or sources are working or have any credibility, the page is solely made for describing the conflicts that either never existed or remains heavily unpopular. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:21, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 14 December 2013 (UTC)


 * delete full of unreferenced statements. Any salient info can be put in India–Nepal relations. LibStar (talk) 15:32, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Obviously this article needs citations and other work, but it's notable.  I will only address the Kalapani dispute, connected to articles I'm developing or expanding for WP:
 * The dispute closed Lipulekh Pass to Nepalis, forcing use of higher, more difficult Tinkar Pass outside the disputed area. Nepal is building a road to Tinkar Pass article
 * It affects a proposed Kailash Sacred Landscape preserve (which needs its own article). This preserve would protect pilgrimage routes in India and Nepal along the (Maha)kali River, leading to Lake Manasarovar and Mount Kailash as well as the sacred lake and mountain themselves.  This pilgrimage has historically attracted participants from South, Southeast and East Asia.  Now it is increasingly attracted Westerners. See for example
 * The area is increasingly a trekking destination in its own right: brochure
 * As an author/editor of articles about Nepal and India, I realize there are problems endemic to articles about the entire region. Many authors are writing in a second language and Indian English certainly has its foibles. They often neglect to cite.  Nationalism and caste/ethic chauvinism often intrude.  Nevertheless Wikipedia has surpassed traditional sources such as Encyclopedia Britannica (which is on a subscription basis anyhow).  Most of these budding authors need to be nurtured and edited.  A few incorrigibles should probably be banned, but that's another matter.  Article deletion is rarely the answer! LADave (talk) 01:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, it's heavily off the track, because it's not popular, it's not covered by the popular news channels, neither it has been brought into parliament of both countries. So what's the need? Bladesmulti (talk) 02:56, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It's front-and-center in the news in Nepal. Too many articles to enumerate there.  I don't regularly read Indian newspapers, but I found references to articles in Hindustan Times and Times of India, as well as an ISDA article (they are funded by India's Ministry of Defence).  While starting or contributing to articles to Wikipedia about the (Maha)kali (border) river and border crossings into China with customs checkposts, I am finding the Kalapani border issue to be an unavoidable subject.  I wanted to link to the Wikipedia article and then poof! most of it was gone.12:02, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok then post about it, in your sandbox and inform here, I would like to see if there's such thing to be existing or actually needful to be presented here, at separate page. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:29, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:31, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep and improve through normal editing. Here is a very detailed article verifying that there are many border disputes between India and Nepal. Here is another in depth article from The Hindu, surely a reliable source. "Unpopular" is neither objective nor a reason for deletion. We have many articles about notable topics that are "unpopular" among some people.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  02:49, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The Weekly Mirror and Hindu articles are excellent finds. Kudos to Cullen328 for that. I'd call the former an opinion piece written from the Nepalese perspective. The Hindu doesn't seem to be taking sides, so it would also be good to find and cite something hewing to India's operational position.


 * Cullen328's point that popularity isn't decisive is also well taken. An encyclopedia is not a newspaper, but journalists find them useful precisely because they are not overly driven by yesterday's hot-button issues.  Therefore they are likely to shed light on future issues popping up with all the unpredictability of history. LADave (talk) 04:03, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Nice, but since we have gathered just 3 sources for now(other one by LaDave), can we just add that into India–Nepal relations? Bladesmulti (talk) 05:14, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No, the topic is discrete enough and notable enough for its own article.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  05:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


 * We have five sources. Three in the original article before Bladesmulti deleted, then two more submitted by Cullen328.LADave (talk) 08:41, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I found a book called India's Borderland Disputes: China, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Nepal. If a book has been published about India's border disputes with its neighbors including Nepal, then certainly the topic is notable.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  08:53, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Are you serious? I mean a article for hardly 500 bytes? And the previous 2/3 links were unreliable. CIA factbook's 2 given link never ever worked, they should not be counted as sources. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:05, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


 * This is the epitomy of chutzpah! The article is short because you, Bladesmulti, improperly deleted most of it.  Not once; three times! There is nothing left in the article for the original links to document.  After trying twice to return the missing material (and fix the broken links) -- only to have you immediately delete for the second and third times -- it definitely started looking like an edit war so I let the article rest and went to the talk page and this deletion request page to try to straighten things out.


 * Really, there was enough information in the original citations that you could have searched the articles and fixed the broken links yourself. If that was too much trouble, you could just have used this approach: Template:Citations broken/doc. Why didn't you? LADave (talk) 21:42, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Sufficiently distinct topic with sufficient specific material on it.  DGG ( talk ) 08:54, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * DGG, This article is all about Kalapani, territory, which can be added there instead, i think it's not necessary to have another article like this. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:21, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - Article related to Territorial dispute are needed. It has also been listed in List of territorial disputes & I had added a link their today.-Ninney (talk) 14:49, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


 * A sampling of sources that can be cited
 * 1) (Click on "Transnational Issues:: NEPAL".)
 * 1) (Click on "Transnational Issues:: NEPAL".)

LADave (talk) 22:28, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it's only Kalapani, territory related right? Bladesmulti (talk) 02:38, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Is it? Here it says "Of the 26 districts of Nepal sharing border with India 21 districts are currently facing the problem of violation of their territory by India." §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 03:47, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Unclear, when it was written or who actually wrote it. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:46, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you saying the info is outdated and now only Kalapani area is under dispute? And that the source is not RS? Its written by Prem Kumari Pant who has few books/articles published on India-Nepal-China and Buddhism. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 05:40, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It is WP:RS, and if you are aware about the writer, there won't be any doubt. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:45, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I know of no reason to doubt that Prem Kumari Pant was the author. Is there any reason to doubt it was first published in 2009, which is the copyright date? The text mentions events in late December 2007, so it's very unlikely the article was written and published before 2008 in any case.  The article gives historical perspective more than up-to-the-minute reportage on fast-changing events. I would have liked to be able to cite the exact date of publication along with the issue number, but given the nature of the cited text I don't think the omission will substantively hurt the validity of a WP article. LADave (talk) 06:15, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Plenty of sources now - they just need adding to the article. I would further like to note that the reason LibStar found no references on the article and so nominated it is because Bladesmulti deleted them all less than fifteen minutes after nominating the article for deletion.  Neonchameleon (talk) 13:34, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Other wiki and youtube can't be sources. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:36, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The five links you removed that time were variously Findarticles, the CIA World Factbook, International Boundary Consultants, Indiaenews, and Groundreport.com. Yes, there was a lot of link rot between the five and Findarticles might qualify as a wiki.  But to remove a citation to the CIA World Factbook and claim it's because you can't use youtube or wikis was to utterly misrepresent the page.  (And even if the CIA World Factbook link didn't work, that didn't make it any harder to use than a reference to a paper book does).  So your defence here is almost entirely irrelevant to your removal of all the references straight after you nominated the page for deletion.  Neonchameleon (talk) 13:57, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * CIA factbook never mentioned this whole subject, the link was entire fabrication. Findarticles is not reliable, anyone can write articles there. So the page was almost based on the false information. Thus nominated for deletion. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:18, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Given that the CIA world factbook mentions the dispute on both the India and Nepal pages I question your assertion. Indeed the section of the report linked had only moved very slightly.  So calling the link a fabrication is demonstrably failing wp:AGF Neonchameleon (talk) 15:03, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree, but the link itself has only "kalapani" terroritory in the dispute list, not any other, which had been claimed. So it's mis-representation of the source. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:07, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The link itself says "contested sections of boundary with India, including the 400 square kilometer dispute over the source of the Kalapani River". If it was only Kalpani territory that was disputed it would have said that; the link implicitly says that the Kalpani territory is the most significant of the disputed regions and that there are others.  Further if you look at the page before you started deleting it we find that the CIA World Factbook was cited to establish two things; first that Kalapani was an area under territorial dispute and the size of the disputed area.  Therefore even if accurate your comment would be irrelevant.  Neonchameleon (talk) 15:29, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Fine, Added this source. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:48, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * As it seems, the decision is going to be Keep, so i would like to withdraw from here, after the discovery of few sources. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:11, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hooray ! Thanks Bladesmulti, Dharmadhyaksha, LADave, Neonchameleon & others - Ninney (talk) 16:25, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Others are User:Cullen328 and User:DGG. I too want to thank all those involved in this discussion.  It is only the second deletion discussion for me and the other one was much shorter. Despite my initial annoyance at a diversion from the work of "building an encyclopedia", it was a valuable experience. LADave (talk) 18:44, 23 December 2013 (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.