Anti-China terrorism in Pakistan : Therefore, it is suggested to delete this article.
 Give your opinion.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nooruddin2020 ( talk • contribs ) Delete : I believe this article violates neutral point of view policy.  Specifically, I have identified several examples of content on the page that present a biased or one-sided view of the topic without sufficient evidence to support such a view.  For instance, the page appears to present a negative view of China and its relationship with Pakistan without taking into account important context or counterarguments.  The information presented seems to rely heavily on anecdotal evidence or speculation rather than reliable sources, which undermines the credibility of the content.  Terrorism is a broad topic and an issues in general in Pakistan, so making a point that only China is targeted in Pakistan is very biased rather both countries are cooperating to counter terrorism.  Furthermore, I have found evidence from reputable sources that contradicts some of the claims made on the page.  For example, 1 , 2 , 3 provides a more nuanced perspective on the issue that highlights the complexities and nuances of China's relationship with Pakistan.  Umais Bin Sajjad ( talk ) 02:21, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Umais Bin Sajjad If you think the article needs improvement, I invite you to add info from the Rashid Ahmad Khan source to the article.  The other two sources don't appear to be reliable.  Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 04:45, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The subject is notable.  Not liking the current version (with very vague reasons given) is NOT an argument for deletion.  Johnbod ( talk ) 03:16, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep, but rename to Anti-Chinese terrorism in Pakistan , as the subject matter primarily appears to focus on attacks against Chinese people, rather than the nation of China per se.  BD2412 T 03:27, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The topic is notable and if the facts are shown in a twisted way , then the solution is to improve the article through normal editing, rather than deleting an article about a notable topic.  Cullen328 ( talk ) 03:37, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:TNT is always a solution to WP:POV WP:OR ridden article.  Oriental Aristocrat ( talk ) 18:29, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Sources in the article demonstrate notability.  A valid deletion rationale has not been provided.  Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 04:45, 12 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Such a thing does not exist.  115.99.241.241 ( talk ) 06:44, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and improve , obviously notable, as noted above.  Please see Reasons for deletion and Alternatives to deletion .  Renaming it might be a good idea, since much of the article talks about cooperation between the two countries on counterterrorism.  Since the title is potentially controversial, the move should be proposed and discussed to get consensus on a better title.  Uncle Spock ( talk ) 09:10, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Nothing significant in this article.  Much of it is already covered in Terrorism in Pakistan .  We can't have separate articles for terrorism against every other country.  It can be merged with the main article alternatively.  Muneebll ( talk ) 05:05, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  04:35, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Discrimination , Terrorism , China ,  and Pakistan .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:26, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep but rename to Anti-Chinese terrorism in Pakistan .  Lightburst ( talk ) 14:01, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] MERGE with the already existing main article Terrorism in Pakistan .  Totally agree with Muneebll 's logic above that ... "We can't have separate articles for terrorism against every other country". ... Ngrewal1 ( talk ) 18:20, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge or redirect to Terrorism in Pakistan . The subject doesn't seem to deserve separate space. Insight 3 ( talk ) 08:58, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or Merge - No scholarly coverage is present regarding the topic of the article that is largely the outcome of WP:OR . Oriental Aristocrat ( talk ) 18:21, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or merge into Terrorism in Pakistan .  If the existence of this article is logical then there should be many articles like Anti-China terrorism in Pakistan, Anti-Afghan terrorism in Pakistan, Anti-Itran terrorism in Pakistan, Anti-India terrorism in Pakistan, etc. In this way, there should be articles about every country. Terrorism in Pakistan or Terrorism in ABCXYZ is enough to cover incidents -- Ameen Akbar ( talk ) 18:32, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That doesn't follow. This article exists because there are multiple independent sources ( [45] , [46] , [47] , [48] ) about this specific phenomenon that do not exist for other countries. Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 19:56, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Just visit US Travel Advisory Website and look at Afghanistan data from October 2002 to June 2022. There are 95 Terrorist Actions. There are sufficient WP:RS for every action. But, there is not any page titled Anti-America terrorism in Afghanistan. Same way for Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza, there are 27 Terrorist Actions. But there is no page like Anti-America terrorism in Israel. You can check data about all countries. You did not create any page about the US but created a page for Pakistan with only 6 incidents. Further, Chinese citizens are not attacked only in Pakistan. There are incidents of attacks on the Chinese in the Central African Republic and Congo . But, there is no page like Anti-China terrorism in Africa. You showed your LOVE only for Pakistan.  You are opening the door for creating thousands of new page like this for every country, as I mentioned in my earlier comment. Ameen Akbar ( talk ) 16:03, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or redirect I have read many articles like these which already cover the topic. After reading WP:FORK , this seems to be a clear example.-- Cheel ( talk ) 19:21, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] In this amount of detail, and all grouped together? Name the "many articles" please. Johnbod ( talk ) 23:05, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If we remove the Attacks section from the article which is obviously a result of WP:OR , the article is barely left with five references and even those do not support the title/topic of the article. Below is the list you asked for: China Pakistan Economic Corridor#Security Balochistan Liberation Army#Attacks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oriental Aristocrat ( talk • contribs ) 00:36, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Karachi Chinese consulate attack Quetta Serena Hotel bombing Dasu bus attack Gwadar suicide attack University of Karachi bombing Oriental Aristocrat ( talk ) 00:30, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Exactly! These areticles don't "cover the topic", they cover specific incidents. A basic function of an encyclopedia is to draw such incidents together and cover the actual topic. Johnbod ( talk ) 12:56, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or Merge - The article seems to be a compilation of individual incidents rather than a coherent narrative or analysis of a specific topic and contain redundant or overlapping information. Thus a WP:CFORK . Ainty Painty ( talk ) 08:12, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Again - the topic is notable. Saying the current version is not much good is not a reason for deletion. Johnbod ( talk ) 12:56, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Hi, I think this article must be deleted due to its baseless subject. Engr.ismailbhutta ( talk ) 15:18, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Johnbod , Isolated incidents of terror attacks on individuals that happen to be Chinese does not constitute "anti-China terror attacks in Pakistan."  There have been attacks on Pakistanis by Pakistanis or by Afghans or Arabs. We don't need an article for "Anti-Pakistan terror attacks in Pakistan."  These are attacks on various individuals who just happen to be Pakistani.-- Cheel ( talk ) 19:56, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is clearly not always the case, especially for BLA attacks, where there is a coherent anti-Chinese policy. This is evidently a super-sensitive topic for many Pakistani editors, but Wikipedia does not accept censorship, which is what some opposes here amount to. Johnbod ( talk ) 21:50, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Johnbod : that is already covered at Insurgency in Balochistan , to which the relevant content should be merged. Imagine if someone created [Anti-Israeli terrorism by Palestinians]], which is clearly well documented. Would you not argue deleting and merging that article with Palestinian political violence ? VR talk 23:10, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The attacks on Chinese are included in only in some of their total attacks Cheel ( talk ) 05:38, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete There is no reason for keeping this article. First of all terrorism is a criminal act and should not be associated with religion, nation or any race. If this article is decided to be kept then every country's article on terrorism should be devided into different articles depending on the people who commitied and which nation or religion was targeted. It can be a heading in the artice "Terrorism in Pakistan". Tahir Mahmood ( talk ) 08:49, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep due to a lack of deletion rationale. Any errors with the article (if there are any) can be fixed by editing, which is strongly favoured over deleting. WP:ATD CT55555 ( talk ) 14:48, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note for closer : This AfD is subject to unusual activity, and I recommend evaluating the contributions of !voters for WP:SPAs before closing. Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 16:03, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : As per Ameen Akbar argument. Obaid Raza ( talk ) 16:04, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The "delete" votes are making zero sense. Aman Kumar Goel ( Talk ) 00:26, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Mind to elaborate how they are "making zero sense"? Sutyarashi ( talk ) 16:40, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] "Nothing significant in this article," "Such a thing does not exist," etc. are the "delete" !votes. None of them make any sense. Aman Kumar Goel ( Talk ) 21:50, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or Merge : This seems to be a clear example of WP:FORK . Surely not worthy of another page. Either delete or merge into terrorism in pakistan page. 27.7.104.126 ( talk ) 08:40, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to terrorism in Pakistan , of which this article is a POV fork. Do we have any other articles "Anti-X terrorism in Y"? Surely, Americans have been targeted by terrorists in many countries. Would we ever fork "Anti-Israeli terrorism by Palestinians" out of Palestinian political violence ? Terror that targets Israelis is amuch better documented phenomenon. At the same time people of many nationalities have been targeted in Pakistan: Americans, Indians, Sri Lankans, Afghans. Should we now create an article for each of them? VR talk 23:02, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : There's zero usage of this term in either news or academic sources. Sutyarashi ( talk ) 12:36, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note to closer In case you are not aware of it, you should take note of Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Suspicious_canvassing_at_multiple_venues .  Johnbod ( talk ) 16:08, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per other people's arguments.  Not finding that this can be considered separately notable from just terrorism in Pakistan.  Onegreatjoke ( talk ) 02:42, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Notable topic and these attacks have been happening for a long time thus creation is totally justified.  I agree that "Delete" comments make no sense.  Shankargb ( talk ) 14:22, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Can you explain why the delete votes don't make sense?  VR talk 15:09, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or Merge Per others' arguments (esp VR) and WP:TNT Solblaze ( talk ) 07:08, 26 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge Probably doesn’t deserve a standalone article.  RS here: [ [49] ] and here: [ [50] ] RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk ) 18:18, 26 April 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.

Discussion outcome: no consensus