Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Pakistan occupied Kashmir

Urgent To-do item, NOW for all Indian Wikipedians

[edit] Save Pakistan occupied Kashmir article from Permanent Deletion, please read below.HELLO Xxxsacheinxxx Please save Pakistan occupied Kashmir article from deletion. The article has been hijacked by Wikipedians of Pakistani origin who are demanding its deletion. Remember, once deleted its gonna be extremely hard to recreate it. This is not a wasted attempt because all claims in the article are well sourced. Please consider the following:

1. Pakistan-occupied-Kashmir is the term used by the Indian government, and for legal reasons followed by the media and Indian publishers

2. The term is POV on Wikipedia, but it is real, because it exists, and cannot be *deleted* away.

3. Redirecting PoK to Azad Kashmir is not the solution. Geographically, Azad Kashmir is a small region of the area labelled as PoK. Therefore, territorially speaking, it is inherently false.

4. Additionally, the term Azad, which means free, is also a POV. Free in what sense? From Indian administration?

5. As a responsible encyclopedia, it is our responsibility to mention what the term means, the area under it, who has dubbed the name, usage of the name, the reasons why it is called, and legal usage in India, Pakistan, and major countries/groups. The page should not be more than two-three paragraphs long, and must point to the articles on Jammu and Kashmir, Kashmir, the Kashmir dispute, Azad Kashmir, and FANA.

Wikipedians of Pakistani origin want this removed and replaced with just the Azad Kashmir and Northern Areas article because it speaks the truth. Anybody with an account can vote. If none please create one right away and vote for keep.

PLEASE DELETE THIS MESSAGE BEFORE VOTING. a similar warning is on wp:india page

Please oppose the page to be deleted. It is requested by Pro Pakistani Wikipedians who want all trace of it to be vanished. Do so immediately!. Key in keep followed by reason.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Xxxsacheinxxx" Can you see it now meco? 86.158.235.148 (talk) 18:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC) this message is courtesy of our noble kashmir cloud or is it User:J-3b56 or cast788 the reason kashmir cloud made double accounts was to force his propaganda from the POK article onto other users to stack up votes also he is blocked so it was a desperate attempt by a desperately biased editor to force his veiws across sadly it has worked to some extent as many users he messaged are indian (im not anti indian) and they will obviously agree with him to some extent as you can see i didnt run around like a mad dog persuading pakistani editors to vote and then sneakily delete the message good day 86.158.235.148 (talk) 18:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

You spoke to soon :-) Pahari Sahib 16:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Aha! Agreed! As for your IP, sir, I'd advise you look here: [1]. What does this mean? BlackPearl14^{[talkies!•contribs!]} 23:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

218 *** is the ip of kashmir cloud lol anything else??? 86.153.130.47 (talk) 09:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand. You first accused 117.X.X.X as Kashmircloud's sock. Now you accuse 218.X.X.X. How can one user use IPs from such different ranges? Even you know, as you're on dynamic IP, your IP only moves around the 86.X.X.X range (and very rarely 81.X.X.X). It doesn't mean every anonymous user who opposes you is Kashmircloud.  S3000  ☎ 10:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

kashmir cloud has been using more 4 accounts to push his biased messages across stop trying to protect him86.153.130.47 (talk) 10:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Can I move the discussion regarding canvassing by various users to this page? Keeping it in the mainspace makes it look cluttered.  S3000  ☎ 10:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the administraters need to see the evidence of canvassing rather than hiding it away in a discussion 86.153.130.47 (talk) 10:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Not hiding, but to make the page more organised. We can make a note on top of the page to refer here for proof of canvassing.  S3000  ☎ 11:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

for editors who say there is need for a single unified article for pakistani kashmir if you cared to open both of your eyes and read both pages i give PAKISTAN ADMINISTERED KASHMIR page which clearly states 3 of the territories under pakistani control i.e azad kashmir,northern areas,trans karakorum tract. So whats the new excuse beside the unification garbage besides i dont see jammu under jammu and kashmir or kashmir valley so this hypocrasy against pakistan must end or you can expect a edit war of epic proportions (which will happen once this POK article gains popularity and a increasing number of pakistani editors discover this) make your choice peace or war 86.158.235.148 (talk) 21:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC) p.s so what if india calls it occupied who has more standing the international community or some indian editors 86.158.235.148 (talk) 21:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

This afd is really in a messy state, and the discussion is difficult to read. and with dynamic IPs and various canvassing and sockpuppet cases abound, wouldn't it be better to initiate a new, semi-protected AfD? --Soman (talk) 10:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Why initiate a new one? RPP for this existing one. You don't expect us to start from scratch. It's not difficult to continue canvassing even if a new one is opened. As you saw, those canvassing usually contacted well-known users and added their canvassing messages in project pages. It's as simple as they'll repeat the process. I fully support semi-protection on this one. Can we do it?  S3000  ☎ 11:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is a mess. I'm a bit wary about semi-protecting an AfD discussion, though if another admin were to do it, I wouldn't say a thing. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

This article is an opinion goat, can't have perspective articles on one subject.Here's a piece of cake, enjoy. http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSDEL5233620080904. — Orion11M87 (talk) 11:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a last resort measure. What we need is a constructive discussion. If it's to be acheived by semi-protecting, we should consider doing so.  S3000  ☎ 11:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked this chap for sockpuppetery User:Nhjy43. Do add the relevant text as I am about to log off. =Nichalp «Talk»= 20:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I would like to personally close this AFD. I acknowledge that I have a conflict of interest since I voted in the AFD, and have actively participated in it. If you have any reservations, please feel free to oppose it here and I will recuse myself from closing it. Else, I will close this AFD in 24 hours by doing the following:

1. Deleting the history of the current POV text Pakistan occupied Kashmir
2. Recreating Pakistan occupied Kashmir and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir as a redirect to Pakistan-administered Kashmir
3. Protecting the two pages (sysop protection) from editing and moving.
4. Updating the text on Pakistan-administered Kashmir page by this version: User:Nichalp/Kashmir
5. Enforcing protection on the Pakistan-administered Kashmir page by preventing unregistered users from editing, and preventing non-sysops from moving the page.

Do let me know if this procedure has the consensus of the AFD participants. Thank you =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

If anyone protests that you are "an involved admin", I may just follow that list myself. My only contribution is to add a note regarding canvassing. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

NOTICE! I propose that I, as an outsider, perform a non-admin closure of this AfD as I have NO conflict of interest having never participated in it (I just do NACs). After that an admin can come and clean up the bits later. At least this way, a neutral party decides that there is no consensus, and thus a keep by default. The debate is not reaching a consensus and looks like it won't. Discussion of this topic should be dealt with by a breakout group of some kind and try to reach a compromise consensus there. Yes/No? _∞Fr33kman^{talk APW} 04:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

No, and sort out your sig. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 04:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Hold on admins. Lets go slow step by step. I have posted 3 questions. That may challenge some of the above steps. --gppande «talk» 19:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)These questions have been answered many days ago freind your a bit slow 86.153.128.50 (talk) 19:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

What about canvassing will the admins know that kashmir cloud has send POV messages to many editors to save the POK article 86.153.128.50 (talk) 19:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with nichalp (or anyone else) following the 5 step proposal outlined above. --Regents Park (count the magpies) 19:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Nichalp, I think it would be inappropriate for a voter and participant in the AfD to close it, and it would very likely lead to problems at deletion review. I'm willing to take on the closure myself as a wholly uninvolved admin. Don't forget there's still a day to go (until 17:40 GMT tomorrow) before the five-day timeframe of the discussion is up. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I nominated the article for deletion, however, I have long since given up attempts to keep up with the debate. I have alerted WP:AN about the fulminant chaos, but I have no experience to be able to give advice on how to handle this so as to avoid an immediate boomerang review or whatever. __meco (talk) 22:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The AfD has been a complete mess, I agree - there has been some very discreditable behaviour by some of those involved with it. However, that shouldn't prevent a satisfactory closure. Don't forget that AfDs aren't votes, so mere weight of numbers on one side or the other won't count. Any reasonably experienced admin with a working knowledge of wikipolicy should be able to work out which arguments in the AfD carry weight, and which ones don't. -- ChrisO (talk)

I too agree it is a mess, and that a neutral re-write of the article is in order. BlackPearl14^{[talkies!•contribs!]} 03:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the points above and this suggestion, the Pakistan occupied Kashmir should be deleted and recreated only as a redirect to the non POV version (Pakistan-administered Kashmir) where all points are covered. Pahari Sahib 04:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, sure, I recuse myself from closure. Just wanted a to chalk out a plan of action that would be acceptable to all, because separating the wheat from the chaff is going to take many hours. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe the closure of this case was too much hastened without any time given to properly arrive on the consensus. Admins united to impose their decision here. It's sad. --gppande «talk» 12:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I guess we need to reopen this case at some point again though some people pretend like this is the end of the world and it can never be re opened again. That is not the way wikipedia works. Docku^Hi 12:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

:::The AFD is still open to commenting. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by judging the quality of the arguments. You may wish to have a look at Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. In fact, counting heads could have brought more votes in favour of deleting. I guess the sockpuppetry and canvassing done during the campaign had an unnecessary side effect on the decision of the outcome.

Infact, the article is verifiable, not original research, it does not violate any copyright. I agree it may not have been written in an NPOV way. In this case, deletion is not the right descision, rewriting could have been. I also think lot of people here forgot the basic fact that The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth from WP:VERI.

Well, in fact by allowing redirect and including this position in PAK, everyone agrees the existence of POK notion in India. contradiction. I just dont get it. Docku^Hi 12:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

By the way, the default result of non-consensus in keep. Did i fail to notice that there was a consensus to redirect? Docku^Hi 12:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Its not a vote: See this judgement too: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of amateur radio emergency service groups. There was either no consensus or a consensus to keep. But the closing admin decided otherwise. Admins are elected to do precisely this. Use good judgement. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Redirect is a type of keep too. Consensus against a wikipedia policy on AFD is not possible. So, if the article violated NPOV, then it counts for nothing. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, what bothers me more is that I am afraid that many of the people who might have voted for deletion might never have heard about this notion of POK until they have read this article or visited this particular AFD (atleast that is the feeling I get reading the reasons). For the record, POK notion is neither a fringe nor a right-wing view in India. It is a view held by the mainstream and one of the things (rightly or wrongly) which unite the whole India north to south, east to west and across regional and linguistic lines. it is a pity that WP would just allow a redirect (though I understand that redirect is kind of keep) not a whole article on that. I guess I will keep the discussion for another day when the case reopens again. Docku^Hi 14:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to address that in my draft. You've not mentioned why PoK and Pak which cover almost the same area (save 5000 km2) need two separate articles. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Notability. Docku^Hi 15:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

How is a fork notable? =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Docku, you're missing the point. There is a whole article on Pakistan Occupied Kashmir. The fact that this 'whole article' is titled Pakistan administered Kashmir rather than Pakistan Occupied Kashmir does not mean that India's opinion that that part of Kashmir is occupied by Pakistan (assuming that is India's opinion) will get short shrift. The essence of neutrality is that all meaningful POVs are presented in one place (so that everyone can see all the POVs) rather than in many places. --Regents Park (count the magpies) 16:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I do agree. But my point is the title. Title is what defines the theme of the article. By titling it PAK we give more legitimacy to PAK and the theme of POK gets lost somewhere along. Would it be appropriate to title it POK and redirect PAK to it? I dont think there will be support for this.

Besides, the issue needs to be looked as two different view points of the same region not just a region. Docku^Hi 16:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Administered vs Occupied: What's the difference? Why can't the two be coalesced as a single topic balancing both viewpoints? =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

well, the difference is obvious. we can have one article if we title it different coalescing both viewpoints. Docku^Hi 17:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Try looking at it this way. It is a matter of fact that the region is administered by Pakistan. However, only one party claims that the territory is occupied, and that view is disputed. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

It is all disputed. Isnt that why one side calls it occupied? Docku^Hi 18:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Let me rephrase. Is there anyone who says that this region is not administered by Pakistan? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I dont say that. But if anyone here feels that India's view that the region is disputed holds no or less significance, I have no belief in getting my message across. Docku^Hi 18:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you are getting your message across. But, forgive me for being blunt, you don't seem to understand how an encyclopedia functions. What you want is two articles India's point of view on the ownership of the part of Kashmir that is occupied by Pakistan and Pakistan's point of view on the ownership of the part of Kashmir that is administered by Pakistan. That is hardly what an encyclopedia purports to do. What we should be doing, and what this redirect decision does do, is having a single article where all credible political claims to the region are discussed. Thus, if China decides to come up with a historical claim to the region, and the claim is credible (i.e., reliable sources document it), information on those claims are added to the article rather than starting a China's point of view on the ownership of the part of Kashmir occupied/administered by Pakistan. The use of the term 'occupied' in the title gives WP:UNDUE weight to one claim while 'administered' has no political implications beyond the facts on the ground. Of course, the many wikipedia readers who arrive at the article from Pakistan occupied Kashmir will be well-served since they will automatically be directed to the relevant article where the claims of occupation (again, I assume that there are such claims - I'm not cognizant with the Indian government's statements on this) will be duly presented with appropriate sourcing. The significance of India's claim to the region should be dealt with appropriately in the article itself (once again, appropriately sourced).

You are the one who has trouble undertsanding wikipedia. You would expect one article on John McCain. Look at this, Political positions of John McCain. Four articles for Obama (as far as I can see): Barack Obama, Political positions of Obama, Obama–Ayers controversy and Jeremiah Wright controversy. If a topic is noteworthy (true or false) and can stand on its own, it can be written here. Docku^Hi

You, once again, missed the point entirely. There are not two articles titled "Republican views of Barack Obama" (what the republican's think of Obama's bio) and "Democratic views of Barack Obama" (what dems think of Obama's bio). Please at least take a look at WP:NOT, WP:NPOV and other basic principles. As for 4 articles on Barack Obama, there is only one on his bio, and there are several sub articles. There are NOT two articles on the same topic about him. Regarding Kashmir, the Indian and Pakistani conflict is adequately discussed in Kashmir conflict. --Ragib (talk) 19:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

My concern is Admins are trying to push their point here without any significant argument presented other than POV for the word occupied. I tried to address it but the only opposite reaction I got was whats wrong with administered? I am not saying administered is wrong. I am saying occupied is also right. Hence the need for 2 articles based on different viewpoints. Why are admins acting so reserved to note a view point held by 1/6th of humanity? Redirect is foolishness. It fools people into another view point of PaK. I am not against redirects. They are meant for other things. Spellings, common term Vs Official terms, etc.... Not to club two 180 degree opposite view points. It's like you are directing electron article to proton. Why admins are so hasty in not accepting that other view points exists for the same region? Why are they ignoring the other side of the coin? Now, you would again say viewpoint is WP:OR. But boys, WP:OR may be things which a person writes on his own without any credible references. Or he writes in a blog and uses a reference. How can be Government of India's view point or Indian media's viewpoint be WP:OR????? --gppande «talk» 19:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, as per your post, you say occupied is not POV. But that would not be a POV if it were not disputed. If Russia occupied Afghanistan does exist for the situation in the 1980s, neither Russia nor Afganistan disputes it. So then, there would be no case for a dispute. In the case of PoK, Pakistan disputes that it is "occupying" Kashmir. Pakistani maps do not label it as "Occupied territory". So, doesn't it become the stance of India only to call it "Pakistan-occupied"? Would that not qualify it as a view point of a single government? =Nichalp «Talk»= 20:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Administered is NOT the "other side of the coin", rather "Free Kashmir" is. No one is advocating that. If you are talking about suitability of the term occupied here, please keep in mind that "Indian occupied Kashmir" can also be applied to the state of Jammu and Kashmir and be backed by equal number of Pakistani government documents. Also, please don't pull the "number" card here ... if 1 billion Indians claim Pakistan or any other country an evil empire, that won't make it so. As for "Indian govt viewpoint", the article you are looking for is Kashmir conflict. Thanks. --Ragib (talk) 19:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

You would like to make it sound like that I am missing the point again. Wouldnt you? Well, If there are strong differences (like the Indian POV and Pakistani POV here) between the republican viewpoints and democratic viewpoints of Obama, I am sure someone will in future consider creating those articles as well. Not really, republicans claim that Obama will withdraw from Iraq soon and so do democrats, republicans say Obama will increase taxes on big companies and democrats dont deny.

Republicans and the media made the Ayers controversy and Jeremiah wright controversy a big issue and that is one of the reasons it became a separate article here.

The issue is 4 articles on Obama and it should have been considered serious BLP POV fork, well, In fact, the article was nominated for POV fork and survived deletion. The issue we are discussing is not even BLP. Docku^Hi 19:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The fundamental issue here is neutrality. Both the article and its title must be neutral. This means that the article content must present views fairly, without bias, and must give due weight to all significant views, and also that the article title must be neutral: it must not present a partisan or biased view of the subject matter. If it is not possible to write a neutral article on a given subject, an article should not be written; if such an article has already been written, it should be deleted.

So much for basic policy. Read it and re-read it as often as necessary, because it is important and it is not likely to change. The solution to this kind of problem is not to segregate every view into its own article like some Wikipedian parody of apartheid, but for every article to contain all significant views of the subject.

The application of that policy to this case is, in my opinion, as follows:- "Pakistan occupied Kashmir" is a biased, partisan, non-neutral title, which is used by one side and one side only. On the other hand, "Pakistan administered Kashmir" is not a partisan title but one which gives a factual description of the territory in question. Therefore, "Pakistan administered Kashmir" is a good title for the article on the subject of this territory. However, many editors may use "Pakistan occupied Kashmir" when searching for information on this region, which is why "Pakistan occupied Kashmir" should redirect the reader to the correct article. If a more neutral title can be found, then the article should be moved to that new title, and both "Pakistan occupied Kashmir" and "Pakistan administered Kashmir" should redirect the reader to that title.

I hope this clarifies things somewhat. This is not me taking sides and pushing one point of view; this is me not taking sides and pushing the neutral point of view. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I am aware that Pakistan occupied kashmir is partisan and only Indian POV. (by the way, is there any view in the world which is not partisan other than some established facts?) I am just talking about an article which deals with that issue as it really is. I am not seeking an article to be written to legitimise the Indian claims and make it sound like an established accepted view of the world. No way. My interest is purely on academical and informational grounds and I believe it deserves a separate article because it is a notable biased view. That is one of the reasons i put forward argument of several articles on different aspects of same topic. Just like you think you have difficulty getting your message across, believe me, i feel the same here. Docku^Hi 20:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Once again, the view you are looking for has its perfect place in the article Kashmir conflict. And yes, you are still not getting the point about WP:NPOV, WP:POVFORK, WP:NOT. --Ragib (talk) 20:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I am aware of wikipedia policies. I am sorry but I do dislike people pointing to links (policies) without providing explanations. I would rather appreciate a point to point explanation of how those links (policies) are related (how the article violates those policies) here. Docku^Hi 20:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Docku, please let us know how the content in PoK is different from PaK? =Nichalp «Talk»= 20:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, the article needs not be long. well, one idea is that it could start with POK is the view held by India for the region administered by Pakistan. and consist of the Indian position from your proposed article as a first paragraph. Second paragraph can summarise the pakistani position, UN position and the current status with a link to pakistan administerd Kashmir. Well, i can work on a draft form in a reasonable time if there is going to be any reception here. I agree that the content is not going to be different but redundant, but the article will be written around the Indian position neutrally. Docku^Hi 20:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

That would be a duplication of content wouldn't it? Pak and Pok having the same content, with only the rearrangement of paragraphs. That's why it's called a POVFORK. And, if there is legiticimacy for such a fork, you would also have to concede that there is equal merit in putting up an article titled Indian-held Kashmir that explains the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir as documented by the government of Pakistan. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I am convinced with User:SheffieldSteel's explanation. He/she explained that all view points be accomodated in one single article - be it Indian or Pakistani. And administered is better than occupied as it represents fact. Agreed. Now more information on Indian viewpoint needs to be added on it. Anyways, thats a different story. To Regib: Kashmir conflict article is no more than summary of the wars over Kashmir. It states few viewpoints but are too lame if a person is searching for "How India treats PaK". Not sure why you pointing to that article. No real meat in it. --gppande «talk» 20:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

GPpande, Yes I agree with you about the article content on Kashmir Conflict. But we should not confuse causation with corelation. We cannot cite that just because the Kashmir Conflict lacks information, we should have two forks. It doesn't work that way. If the Kashmir conflict article does does not have an indepth coverage, it has to be expanded. The article will not be considered "complete" or stable till the article reaches a featured article status. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, I am the only one still holding my ground. I dont see any point in pursuing this unless there are more people sharing my opinion. Docku^Hi 21:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

To quote Ragib, "Administered is NOT the "other side of the coin", rather "Free Kashmir" is." So why do we have an article titled Azad Kashmir? Azad which means Free is a highly POV term coined by Pakistani Govt. just like the Indian Govt. coined PoK. I agree that PoK was rightly redirected to PAK. I have a single question to all the upholders of Wiki NPOV, "Please let me know why the same NPOV principles are not being applied to the Azad Kashmir article?" Shovon (talk) 10:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

We also have Jammu and Kashmir instead of Indian-held Kashmir. =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Nichalp has already said what I wanted to say, but here I quote Soman's argument in the AFD page: "We follow NPOV in the sense that we use the formal names for the existing administrations, Azad Kashmir and Jammu and Kashmir." --Ragib (talk) 18:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

So put up some AfDs? Gwen Gale (talk) 12:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

And merge all articles into one called Kashmir :) Docku^Hi 12:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Look at this. I found two more articles on Obama, total of 6

Barack Obama, Family of Barack Obama, Cultural and political image of Barack Obama, Political positions of Obama, Obama–Ayers controversy and Jeremiah Wright controversy. POV fork championship. funny. Docku^Hi 03:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you really serious here? Have you ever looked at WP:SUMMARY? (This time, I shall specify out the exact point :) ) -

"This page in a nutshell:

• Sections of long articles should be spun off into their own articles leaving a summary in its place
• Summary sections are linked to the detailed article with a {{main|<name of detailed article>}} or comparable template
• To preserve links to the edit history of the moved text, the first edit summary of the new article links back to the original."

Now, what part of the above is "unbelievable"? I sincerely hope you are raising a point while not understanding the difference between Summary style-subarticles and pov forks on *same* topic, but after explaining it multiple times, I give up!! :) Please, read the pages, and other basic wikipedia policies. Thank you. --Ragib (talk) 04:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, I should have mentioned that I do not and never supported the article with the content it was chosen for AFD. While I am pointing out several articles can be written on the same topic, you are arguing different articles can not be written on different viewpoints (one correct and one wrong) on the same subject. However, I believe we can do that and I have shown you examples.

In other words, I do understand your position and I just dont agree with you. But I dont think you even understand my position (disagreeing is a different issue).

I am not stroking a conversation here to restart the whole mess all over again, I sincerely was apalled by these articles Barack Obama, Family of Barack Obama and Cultural and political image of Barack Obama. Good luck and take care. Docku^Hi 04:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Those articles (along with any of their lacks or strengths) don't mean a thing when discussing this topic. Please see WP:WAX and WP:Content forking. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I personally dont believe it is a case of content forking. Well, it may be true if you just consider the horribly biased untrue content with which the article was chosen for AFD. Well, I am making a broader argument by just looking at the title and theme not its current content, which may have been a mistake. It could just be that others are making their arguments based on the content. Therefore, I see it as a case of whole bunch of editors disagreeing with my point of view which may not have happened if the article was written in a different way. In any case, I dont really see any point in pursuing this now. Docku^Hi 14:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)