Deletion of Indians in Afghanistan

Comment: clearly a . The only aim of writing this article was to spread Pakistani wp:POV on the Balochistan conflict, the article also fails to provide neutral source to back up the claims on spying activites etc and ends up giving the sources with Pakistani POV. I also agree with the comments by
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COATRACK)

Comment: This article is between stub and start class and is well sourced. The notability criteria is prominent on its own and as well as on all the sections cited. The nominator first tried to remove the information and has now nominated the article for deletion to by pass edit warring. The article is by no way a coat track since it contains only a small section (of few lines) about the Indian intelligence activities in Afghanistan which would still be there if the article was a lengthy one or even a GA class. That is called giving |due weight to everything. Instead of deleting the article and it should be expanded on the areas it majorly covers. It would be a coat track article if it was based on the intelligence activities which it is not. This is like asking for a deletion of an article in its initial stages because it got a bit of critique while in that stage (that too not in much length
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:DUE)

Comment: Afghanistan had a large Indian community (many Afghan Hindus and Sikhs were of North Indian / Punjabi descent), and although many of them have migrated to Pakistan or India now, this diaspora article serves to discuss that subject of interest. http://indiandiaspora.nic.in/diasporapdf/chapter2.pdf This source I used is in particular quite informative about the community and shows that it numbered around 45,000 which itself is a sizable population. The part about construction workers, as well as the presence of Indian intelligence activists suspected of spying and terrorist-related activities is recent history and would preferably be better accomodated in  independent short sub-sections. I suggest using the format utilised in the article Afghans in Pakistan which has a separate section for  "terrorism" right at the end, discussing alleged militant activities. A similar concept could be followed here, such as by having an "Alleged intelligence presence" section whose content should of course comply with , ,  and most importantly 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:DUE||WP:WEIGHT||WP:RS||WP:NPOV)