Deletion of Research and Analysis Wing activities in Pakistan

Comment: the article is as notable as other related articles like Inter-Services Intelligence activities in India etc. The fork-based arguments are seemingly are quite close to  and then there is 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ITSCRUFT||WP:ATD)

Comment: as per #ESSAY, PROPAGANDA, article is  ill-sourced, POV article treating as fact Pakistani government allegations that the government o  of India is supporting Baloch "terrorism" in Pakistan.  Here's a little backgorund form the BBC: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-32604137 What lies behind Pakistani charges of Indian 'terrorism
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:NOTPROPAGANDA)

Comment: Not enough sources or coverage to pass GNG. Either way it is only based on some heavily disputed allegations and article itself reads like 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH)

Comment: Mostly unsourced . Expand Research and Analysis Wing if you want, but I am sure much of the content of this POV fork can get rejected there too
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK)

Comment: In my opinion, the current version of the article fails , a core policy. The subject is notable and is briefly covered in the main article, this fork could be useful, but after a weak at AfD, the lede sentense and background sections are still, I feel, strongly POV
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)

Comment: Clear  of Research and Analysis Wing. &mdash
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK)

Comment: Agree with nominator that this is a . The article only focuses on a single viewpoint of RAW involvement, in spite of many refs giving substantial weight to opinions that accusations have been made to cover-up internal issues. (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-32604137, http://www.wsj.com/articles/pakistan-is-pressed-over-dual-track-terror-strategy-1470938346, https://books.google.com.pk/books?id=e-vBAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA29&lpg=PA29&dq=Russia,+India+and+UAE+involved+in+Baloch+insurgency&source=bl&ots=QYbAloUU1q&sig=v2MQXq9fnm8cdCQs-QtzABrccGM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiw6MW3_sXZAhUIORQKHTAyAEoQ6AEIhQEwDQ#v=onepage&q=Russia,+India+and+UAE+involved+in+Baloch+insurgency&f=false, https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/09KARACHI398_a.html). A substantial part of article is either a list of accusations or statements of Indian involvement in general rather than RAW specifically. There are also multiple sourcing issues in the article including statement contradicted by reference placed near it (https://www.hindustantimes.com/analysis/how-best-can-india-play-the-balochistan-card-against-pakistan/story-vOq6IkRKSdlzgGYKkI7pjK.html), op-ed used as a ref (https://www.hindustantimes.com/analysis/afghanistan-pakistan-and-the-f-16-mattis-has-to-hardsell-these-issues-on-his-visit-to-india/story-qvL9NS6wgl17sy756hE2WN.html), news reports on other reports used to artificially inflate ref count (https://nation.com.pk/24-Sep-2017/ttp-is-an-active-indian-card-in-pakistan-and-afghanistan-hindustan-times reports on https://www.hindustantimes.com/analysis/afghanistan-pakistan-and-the-f-16-mattis-has-to-hardsell-these-issues-on-his-visit-to-india/story-qvL9NS6wgl17sy756hE2WN.html, https://tribune.com.pk/story/545058/sarabjit-singh-was-a-raw-agent-indian-report/ reports on https://www.hindustantimes.com/delhi-news/was-sarabjit-singh-a-raw-agent/story-62qEnuOGe1fXFSckX7ovfN.html), usage of opinions from fringe theorists (http://foreignpolicynews.org/2015/05/29/terrorism-deception-and-india/ from a 9/11 truther) and using WikiLeaks ref to cite an unreliable website (https://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/63/63956_india-intel-research-.html originally from http://www.faqs.org/espionage/Gu-In/India-Intelligence-and-Security.html). The remaining well-sourced content can added to Research and Analysis Wing article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK)

Comment: The nom should peruse . There are numerous academic sources that discuss this in detail. For example India: Foreign Policy & Government Guide, Volume 1 {{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com.pk/books?id=bgGCCP5Fxg0C&dq=RAW+in+Pakistan&source=gbs_navlinks_s|title=India: Foreign Policy & Government Guide|last=Publications|first=USA International Business|date=May 2001|publisher=Int'l Business Publications|isbn=9780739782989|language=en}}, What We Won: America's Secret War in Afghanistan, 1979 89 by Bruce Riedel {{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com.pk/books?id=Hb8xAwAAQBAJ&dq=RAW+in+Pakistan&source=gbs_navlinks_s|title=What We Won: America's Secret War in Afghanistan, 1979 89|last=Riedel|first=Bruce|date=2014-07-28|publisher=Brookings Institution Press|isbn=9780815725855|language=en}}, India's External Intelligence: Secrets of Research & Analysis Wing (RAW) by V. K. Singh {{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com.pk/books?id=-CN5Lr7HaLwC&dq=RAW+in+Pakistan&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi72ZuLn8DZAhXOq1kKHfaVB9wQ6AEIzwEwHw|title=India's External Intelligence: Secrets of Research & Analysis Wing (RAW)|last=Singh|first=V. K.|date=2007|publisher=Manas Publications|isbn=9788170493327|language=en}}, International Security and the United States: An Encyclopedia, Volume 1 by Karl R. DeRouen, Paul Bellamy {{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com.pk/books?id=2DKJZbHxHDEC&dq=RAW+in+Pakistan&source=gbs_navlinks_s|title=International Security and the United States: An Encyclopedia|last=DeRouen|first=Karl R.|last2=Bellamy|first2=Paul|date=2008|publisher=Greenwood Publishing Group|isbn=9780275992545|language=en}} etc. etc
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE)

Comment: of course. Nominator hasn't explained what is POVFORK about the topic. Issues about article material, if any, should be taken to the talk. That's not what  is for. So far as the topic is concerned, it meets  from all criteria. There's a long history of espionage and cross-border intelligence from India to Pakistan, and it's covered in all |reliable, academic sources. The cases of Kulbhushan Jadhav, Ravindra Kaushik, Sarabjit Singh and Kashmir Singh are amongst the most notable ones to merit mention. And at the international and diplomatic level, Pakistan and India have for decades traded allegations on RAW activities, right from the heads of state to military and government levels. So there is no question as far as notability is concerned, and this article is of equivalent scale to topics like ISI activities in India, CIA activities in India etc
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:AFD||WP:GNG||WP:RS)

Comment: Yeah, may be the article needs expanding to become more readable, but compering it with Research and Analysis Wing isn't correct. The latter concentrates on the organization itself, where this one is more specific. Why need a separate article? Well, enough coverage exists for this topic to qualify 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: For users arguing for merge into the main article, they still need to explain how it would be feasible taking into account content size per . It would be impossible to merge and expand such large amount of content, unless you want the RAW article to mostly be about Pakistan
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Splitting (WP:SPLITTING)

Comment: per  and . Non-notable subject, creation also seems suspicious
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK||WP:RIGHTINGGREATWRONGS)

Comment: I am seeing the article has been expanded since the nomination but now it looks like an  and still remains a non-notable 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:POVFORK)

Comment: and '''merge''' to Research and Analysis Wing: I see no reason why this subject meets GNG when it is just a , largely depending on two allegations refuted by everyone. It also seems to be a violation of . I recommend merging this into the "Research and Analysis Wing" article, where we can devote an appropraite amount of space to it. A separate article is 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:CFORK||WP:NOTPROPAGANDA||WP:UNDUE)

Comment: Article written to promote a specific POV and fails .  Already covered under Research_and_Analysis_Wing#Defections_and_spy_scandals|Research and Analysis Wing
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NEUTRAL)