Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crowd control in Jammu and Kashmir

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. This is a borderline frivolous nomination. No need to waste editorial resources. (non-admin closure) ∯WBG^converse 09:35, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Crowd control in Jammu and Kashmir (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)

As per DYK nomination epic failure and no one seeming to understand what is going on. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 05:32, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I don't quite understand this nomination, which is made by the article creator. If you're frustrated with the DYK review, you could simply withdraw the DYK nomination and move on. Why do you want to delete the entire article? It seems to be quite well referenced. -Zanhe (talk) 05:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It’s dramatic irony. Trillfendi (talk) 06:43, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Zanhe, as per DYK reasons given by other editors such as NPOV. (I am stating the reasons given by the DYK opposers as AFD reasons, and not the DYK nomination itself) Also I shouldn't have created this article since I think I have essentially twisted "used" references in a way that abides by Wikipedia policies, but not in a way that does justice to the topic at large. It is my opinion that I do not see these problems being sorted out for this particular article. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 06:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• If the result of this AFD is keep then of course it can stay. But if it is delete it should go. If the result is keep, I will stay away from the article for at least a month since I have already been tagged for overreacting. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 06:55, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep. Not a valid nomination - failing DYK is not a valid deletion rationale. Author requested deletion also seems to be out of the question since there are other contributors. The topic it self, as evident in the sources in the article, or even a cursory before - WaPo 2017, Guardian 2016, NYT 2016 is clearly notable. The article possibly could use NPOVing and the prose could also possibly be improved - but overall seems to be a decent article (I do not swim in the subject matter here - so I might be missing some big NPOV issue - however NPOV is not a deletion rationale unless this is a POVFORK - yet no forked article has been identified). Icewhiz (talk) 07:18, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep - per not valid nom. Also article sources and basic WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 08:08, 4 March 2019 (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.