Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gilgit-Baltistan United Movement

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 no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:15, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gilgit-Baltistan United Movement

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Per request by User:175.107.224.105: No proof of notability of this article, let alone sustained coverage. Had only unreliable references which do not even mention the subject, which were cleaned up by me UtherSRG (talk) 15:45, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Pakistan. UtherSRG (talk) 15:45, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any material which can be salvaged such as the sole ref to History of Gilgit-Baltistan#Self-governing status and present-day Gilgit Baltistan. - Indefensible (talk) 15:52, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed my earlier vote per what Jahaza wrote below. - Indefensible (talk) 22:03, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not sure what's going on here, but the IP user removed material that was not, in fact, unreliable, merely no longer available via web or which per WP:RS Noticeboard had "additional considerations apply" while claiming that the source had been "blacklisted," which it hadn't.[1]. There are other sources that are not included in the article:[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]. Some of these are passing mentions, but I think it's enough to confirm that this group really does exist. Jahaza (talk) 17:33, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sources need to be dug up from Archive, for instance, the initiator thought that the first source no longer existed/or was too old, I found it in Archive.org and fixed it. Jahaza (talk) 17:50, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jahaza My apologies for removal of those refs, I was not aware of the concept of link rot and thought refs can be removed as I could not see relevant content. (Though the ANI source I removed is still "deprecated" if not "blacklisted" per the link you showed me, which is what I meant actually). Modifying my argument above per new info that the article lacks sustained coverage as evidence by the sources which are all either unreliable, passing mentions or decades old hence fails the GNG policy. It is better off merged — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.107.224.105 (talk) 18:01, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing, the opinion piece sources you've restored as relevant because it was written by the party chairman would probably be useful if an article existed on the chairman, I removed it here to declutter the article as the political entity (GBUM) was not even mentioned in it. Just noting it here for the afd reviewers.175.107.224.105 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:15, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you're really familiar enough with our policies or with Wikipedia editing to make these judgments. You've stated that it was a hoax[10], or that the sources were too old (but see WP:NTEMP), or that sources didn't contain mention of the topic (some of which just had to be recovered via Archive.org), or that there is no sustained coverage (which in practice contradicts your statement that the sources are too old). Jahaza (talk) 19:28, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But I had already modified my comment about the "hoax" part, that is an old revision. Not sure why you're looking too much into it, but understand why I might have left a "confused" impression on my part by not clearing things up properly by including diffs. Here's a diff I was refering to, the content of which I removed (now reverted) because it didnot even mention the political entity [11]. The "too old sources" argument is just ONE argument for lack of evidence of sustained coverage, because the only reliable (independent) sources that exist are passing mentions of the party, unreliable partisan sources/opinion pieces cannot be used to establish notability as stated under the notability guidelines. Especially not ANI. 175.107.224.105 (talk) 19:54, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A detailed analysis by me for all the sources used in the article and given above by Jahaza. The ones listed in the vote above are all passing mention sources, and cannot be used to establish notability.

1). Ref 3 [12], Ref 4 [13], & Ref 5 (an open access journal) [14] passing mention sources, not enough to establish notability as a standalone article. 2). Ref 7 [15], Ref 8 [16] & Ref 9 [17]. Again, another series of passing mention low quality Indian news sources, all of which are ridden with heavily partisan language. 3) Ref 1 [18] This is the only source you've listed which is focused on the party, but again dubious looking partisan source/propaganda outlet for the Indian government , it is not usable as a WP:RS as it not independent.

An analysis for the sources listed in the article.

4). Jahaza states that ANI as a source is usable since "additional considerations apply" "[19]. But here it explicitly mentions that "the news agency's coverage of events and people related to Indian domestic and FOREIGN politics, in particular, is WP:QUESTIONABLE" i.e. its use as a "reliable" source doesn't apply to this article. 5) Passing mention news sources used to bloat the article which do not even mention GBUM, but just discusses some other "4th political party" which existed. [20] and this source [21] which also doesn't mention GBUM. 6). [22] a letter written by the party itself to the Pakistani prime minister. Primary source. 7) Lastly, this book [23] is also passing mention.

As the notability guidelines state, atleast a couple independent sources with evidence of significant coverage are required to pass WP:GNG, which this article does not have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.107.224.105 (talk) 00:03, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have you previously edited in this topic area under a different account? Jahaza (talk) 01:49, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An oddly inappropriate thing to ask out of nowhere in the middle of an afd. Is there something wrong with my edits/the arguments I have presented or not having a registered account? You can leave a message on my talk page. 175.107.224.105 (talk) 02:17, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that is an inappropriate question at all. Being able to review an editor's contribution as part of an AfD conversation isn't unreasonable, and you appear to have excellent info. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 16:23, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair, but off topic for an afd. My IP address contributions disappear after a few weeks/months, which is completely out of my control just to let you two know. 175.107.224.105 (talk) 19:40, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (with a bias toward Keep). This would make an excellent section in Gilgit-Baltistan, possibly called something like "Independence Movement" that could also include other like-minded parties if such exist. If that is not seen as viable by all editors, I lean toward a !vote of Keep. It teeters on the edge of GNG as a largely regional group, but there are five sources ranging from 2003 to 2012 which meets SIGCOV and SUSTAIN within that narrow context. Cheers Last1in (talk) 16:33, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
History of Gilgit-Baltistan#Self-governing status and present-day Gilgit Baltistan See here regarding the politics of that region. This autonomist political party is already mentioned. Inline with the what all the relevant sources say if you go through them, the rest being bloat material. 175.107.224.105 (talk) 19:52, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insufficient coverage from reliable sources. Non notable movement. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nooruddin2020 (talk • contribs) 02:01, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:32, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:21, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The cited sources either don't mention the subject or are from Indian sites which are not neutral on the issue. Even if such movement exists, it is not notable yet. Insight 3 (talk) 05:13, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:08, 2 September 2023 (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.