Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inter-Services Intelligence support for terrorism

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. Despite all the SPAs (including one proxy editor), the result is to delete and not redirect. The current title of the article is not neutral and is more an opinion, or a referenced opinion. Also, this is duplicating existing topics and there is not much newly sourced information in the article. It discribes affiliations and activities, which is already covered in the other articles, or should be covered there. This is not disputing the right for the information to exist (except where previous consensus has been made), but it does need to be done in a more neutral fashion, and we can't be saying they have ties to group x and group y, so they are now supporting terrorism, as "supporting terrorism" is an opinion in itself. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 19:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Inter-Services Intelligence support for terrorism

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

This topic is covered well in the main article. This is a WP:POVFORK created after two RFCs ([1], [2]) at the main article's talk were closed with consensus to exclude the content proposed by the author. So this article is also in a way evading the consensus reached there. SMS ^Talk 18:00, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And to add to the above, there is already an article on the topic: Pakistan and state terrorism. This article is WP:REDUNDANT. One of them needs to go, either this should be kept and the other AfD'd, or the other is kept and the content from here is merged to there. Mar4d (talk) 08:38, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not a fork at all, theISI are constantly described as a state within a state, the state terrorism article is an overview whilst this one goes into detail in ISI activities. They often work without telling the state what they do after all. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well sourced to academic press, highly notable topic. Stunning how long it lasted till the AFD hit home, checking my edits are we? BTW, the AFD seems to be broken? Darkness Shines (talk) 18:04, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah the AFD link on the article looks to be broken but works fine. --SMS ^Talk 19:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete: I didn't notice this article's creation (till now). Certainly a POVFORK as two RFCs (where I participated) couldn't get a consensus on the ISI article talk page to even get a section in there (atleast for the content in that proposal). We also already have an article Pakistan and state terrorism. I will make no further comments but will advise the closer to see the talk page of Inter-Services Intelligence. This can simply be deleted per WP:SNOW if consensus is observed at the main article talk page. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, topic is very notable as the ISI is noted among international experts on the region for explicitly using proxy groups as a geostrategic instrument. JCAla (talk) 20:35, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has certainly received coverage from reliable sources: [3][4][5]. Note that there are over a hundred pages about the CIA--it's not unthinkable to have multiple pages about a single intelligence agency. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not about the page, rather about WP:POVFORK as the same content could not get a consensus in the main ISI article and this article is highly biased at the moment since it circumvents that consensus. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I ought to have mentioned: we should change the title to "Allegations of..." and adjust the text accordingly. It's a fairly short article so cleanup should be easy. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. ISI figures in at least three Wikipedia articles on terrorism. There are many RS for the same, three examples being:
- Adm Mullen Accuses Pakistans ISI Of Treachery But Says Lets Keep Talking
- Thomas J. Biersteker; Sue E. Eckert (2008). Countering the financing of terrorism. Taylor & Francis. pp. 133. ISBN 978-0-415-39642-4. Retrieved 14 March 2012.
- Great Britain: Parliament: House of Commons: Foreign Affairs Committee (2007). South Asia: fourth report of session 2006-07, report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence. The Stationery Office. p. 1. ISBN 978-0-215-03378-9. Retrieved 14 March 2012.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AshLin (talk • contribs) 04:55, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even the article title is not conforming to NPOV to start with, how is it anything separate from the Pakistan and state terrorism article or the main ISI article which has this covered? --lTopGunl (talk) 14:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. A similar article was written before too. --SMS ^Talk 05:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Pakistan and state terrorism There is no need for this article when there is an article that already exists on the topic, called Pakistan and state terrorism. The content here should be merged there as this is a POVFORK; this article is basically just being used as a stick to beat Pakistan with. Mar4d (talk) 08:42, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you remember the consensus on ISI talk page, the only place it is good enough to be merged to is that talkpage. The content was already covered in that article and the proposal in that form was rejected. This one currently goes against that consensus. So you might want to change your !vote to delete and redirect. A consensus will need to be formed for the inclusion there. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:10, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Previous recent admin closures: [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. Just a WP:SNOW context for my delete comment above. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:32, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speed keep: Subject of documentary 'Secret Pakistan' by BBC. 'Wiki leaks' cables talk about this allegations in detail. --200.98.197.34 (talk) 11:55, 14 March 2012 (UTC) — 200.98.197.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Also probable sock, see [11]. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pakistan and state terrorism. Nearly all intelligence agencies around the world are usually accused of terrorism by other groups. I could see if there were ISI members captured and convicted somewhere for terrorism but so far its just blame games.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.47.36.30 (talk • contribs) 17:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC) — 39.47.36.30 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete and redirect to Pakistan and state terrorism. Completely redundant topic, as the material has been covered in Pakistan and state terrorism already. September88 (talk) 17:48, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - highly notable topic of a rogue agency which supported bin laden. extensive coverage in RS.--Wikireader41 (talk) 00:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong KeepThe article is not a wp:POVFORK. As clearly mentioned in the last para of the policies There is currently no consensus whether a "Criticism of..." article is a pov fork, also i feel the editors motivated by a strong sense of nationality are suggesting to delete anything that does not support their ideology. the Article is clearly an important topic and deserves a separate article, also it should be noted that this article is fairly supported by a number of wp:RS (and obviously not a personal theory or a POV theory as is being claimed). The article should stay, needs to be elaborated with more sources, and ,may be some words can be rephrased if the editors agree for making it more wp:NEUTRAL-- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 17:31, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Rename, obviously. Duh. When are you going to get that 'terrorism' is POV, without a well-documented statement from the group concerned that they are trying to inspire terror with their activities? Try, irregular military. Anarchangel (talk) 23:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article is controversial without consensus. Delete this article and first add content to ISI article by consensus of all editor community. The editors says above this does not have consensus to add there so how can this article be created. --39.41.168.9 (talk) 15:25, 20 March 2012 (UTC)— 39.41.168.9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. And based on geolocation is likely a sock of 39.47.36.30 Darkness Shines (talk) 15:30, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not another IP of any one else. Please do not remark on me. --39.41.168.9 (talk) 15:46, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete good debate every one but sorry this article has to be deleted because Pakistan and state terrorism and ISI own article are present. I looked at talk of ISI page through links in this debate this is article is a restart of that debate. This non neutral content should be deleted. SMS and lTopGunl have given interesting points to delete this. I hereby credit my own opinion to pro-delete side of debate. Thank you everyone else for showing me these wikipedia policies for future reference. --Highstakes00 (talk) 15:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So your just going to follow me around now are you? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:06, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did not understand you had other comment too. I have removed as you said. Thanks. I am not going to follow you, I wish to edit on my own behalf. I saw this debate from ISI page. It was in See also. Please do not blame me again and keep the peace deal. --Highstakes00 (talk) 15:14, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.