Deletion of Pakistan administered Kashmir

Comment: nbsp;This is obviously a  since everything already exists elsewhere. Nothing has changed since multiple past RfCs and discussions where consensus was to keep these links a redirect. See Talk:Pakistan-administered_Kashmir#WP:DABCONCEPT, Talk:Azad_Kashmir/Archives/2011–2012#Merger_proposal and many other discussions. It was clearly a bad idea to create an article without gaining consensus prior hand. I am also notifying {{U|BD2412}}, {{U|R'n'B}}, {{U| Orangemike}}&nbsp;who participated in past discussions and still appears to be actively editing
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK)

Comment: DBigXray is right that prior to this article being created {{no redirect|Pakistan-administered Kashmir}} was being redirected to Azad Kashmir. That was done in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pakistan-administered_Kashmir&diff=478799714&oldid=477441416 2012, when most of the present editors weren't around. The edit summary says "per talk", but the talk page discussion was a mess. It was  and factually wrong, because the reliable source I gave above https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=a19eCwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=editions:-RXHw0QswGYC&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiGhIPn-o_fAhUnRhUIHdRPBIYQ6AEIMDAB#v=onepage&q=%22table%202%22&f=false clearly shows both Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan being parts of "Pakistan-administered Kashmir". The old redirect is not acceptable
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: a poorly created redundant . All of the sources mentioned above (with some not even mentioning the term) seems to be verifying that we can't create more than a couple of sentences of the article. This is already covered in the 3 named articles by the nominator and also covered on Kashmir. Why we have to fork content to create more 100s of articles? I would at least support '''restoring redirect''' of the version of 2017.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pakistan_administered_Kashmir&diff=808401193&oldid=808398905
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK)

Comment: or '''restore redirect''' - Per nom and my comment above. Only issue should be that where this article should redirect. The https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pakistan_administered_Kashmir&diff=808401193&oldid=808398905 last stable version which redirected to Azad Kashmir was not without merit since numerous scholarly sources don't mention Gilgit-Baltistan and say "Pakistan-administered Kashmir" means "Azad Kashmir".https://books.google.com/books?id=dpTpCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA231&dq=azad+kashmir#v=onepage&q=azad%20kashmir&f=falsehttps://books.google.com/books?id=ej1RD5dNykYC&pg=PA23&dq=administered+kashmir#v=onepage&q=administered%20kashmir&f=falsehttp://journals.iobmresearch.com/index.php/PBR/article/view/1885/335https://orgs.law.harvard.edu/lids/files/2011/11/LIDS-WP-1112-Dar.pdf There is no clear scope of the subject since "Pakistan-administered Kashmir" is also referred as "Azad Kashmir" by sources, and mention of Gilgit-Baltistan is excluded. In addition to this serious problem, this article cannot be written without copy pasting content from Gilgit-Baltistan and Azad Kashmir to here, or adding content which actually belongs to those two article.  applies here
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK)

Comment: Per , since nothing here can be described in more than one or two sentences which has been already detailed on other articles like Kashmir. Scope is dubious like Shiv Sahil notes since the term can mean both Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan or only Azad Kashmir. In reliable sources, the use of "Pakistan-administered Kashmir" term is similar to that of "Indian-administered Kashmir" like {{noping|Syed Zain Ul Abideen Bukhari}} describes and that is why we can't just create a "Pakistani-administered Kashmir" against long term consensushttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pakistan-administered_Kashmir#WP:DABCONCEPT while avoiding the creation of an Indian-administered Kashmir page. In any case, such articles cannot be created without mass content forking and that is clearly against our policies. There is clearly nothing new for us to describe here that hasn't been already described elsewhere
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK)