Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 India–Pakistan border incident

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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

2011 India–Pakistan border incident

2011 India–Pakistan border incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:26, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

None notable border skirmish fails WP:GNG Darkness Shines (talk) 16:00, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:GNG and WP:NOT#NEWS, Nothing to state why this incident is notable enough. --DBigXray 16:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
• Delete per DBigXray. Shots only allegedly fired, no apparently casualties, and no significant news coverage or WP:PERSISTENCE. --BDD (talk) 16:35, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• Delete: it does not meet GNG and falls under NOT#NEWS. Is it necessary that on every single incident or issue that has no importance, we should have the article on wikipedia?. Justice007 (talk) 17:39, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: Another article has been created for the same event: 2012 Indian Army Fire Attack. --Anbu121 (talk me) 19:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• which I have CSD A10ed.--DBigXray 20:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• Which I have deleted as a housekeeping mop-up. No opinion on the substance of this AfD. Bearian (talk) 22:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• Delete No significant coverage in Media. Fails WP:GNG. --Anbu121 (talk me) 05:39, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
• Delete per Anbu121. Anotherclown (talk) 10:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:GNG, along with WP:NOT#NEWS. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 13:29, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
• Delete as per Vibhijain (talk), DBigXray (talk), Justice007 (talk). Mrt3366 ^(Talk?) 08:08, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• Redirect to India–Pakistan relations, and merge any significant content in this article (if any) there.  The Steve  10:25, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

There are no strong evidences that this incident happened. So, I think there should not be a redirect. --Anbu121 (talk me) 10:34, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I am afraid there is nothing to merge here per WP:INDISCRIMINATE--DBigXray 12:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Redirects are cheap, but they are used when there is a possibility of readers searching that title. Given the media coverage this incident got, and in fact whether this incident happened or not, I think deleting is the best option here. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 11:59, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• Also note that the article is an orphan; we don't need to worry about incoming links, so a redirect only makes sense if we think this is a likely search term; I don't. --BDD (talk) 16:24, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Incident? Such a vague term. Why do you want it to be a redirect? Also there might have be hundreds of "incidents" on the vague place "border", of this nature or other. Should we have redirects for all such? Check this news article. "Nearly 21 ceasefire violations have taken place this year followed by 51 cases in 2011, 44 cases of ceasefire violations along the LoC in Jammu and Kashmir were registered in 2010 and 28 were in 2009." Should we make 144 redirects for all these dates? Like 11 August 2012 India-Pakistan border incident and 7 August 2012 India-Pakistan border incident and so on?? §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 21:18, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per above reasons. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 21:18, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
• Delete as per above reasons. Bharathiya (talk) 09:06, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
• Redirect and merge the citations - it appears to have happened, but is minor enough that 1 or 2 lines should be added, while keeping the two citations in the main article. Bearian (talk) 20:54, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Would you please respond to my above comment against redirection? §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 21:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per all above. Not meeting the basic criteria for inclusion. Not enough information to showcase notability. — ΛΧΣ21™ 01:50, 16 August 2012 (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.