1950 Afghan invasion of Pakistan: The sources don't even state this as an invasion either, and more as a border skirmish, which there is already pages for.  Noorullah ( talk ) 05:41, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] So my proposal is this: Delete the page if the information cannot be verified with better sources, and if it can, integrate it into the Afghanistan–Pakistan border skirmishes page.  Noorullah ( talk ) 05:43, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is simply not true, in my sources, according to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history) , I have used reliable sources, such as Violent non-state actors in the Afghanistan–Pakistan relations in the Routledge Handbook of Contemporary Pakistan, which states “It didn’t take long for Pakistan to repel this rather crude invasion. ” There isnt “only one source” which you stated earlier, this can be backed up in the Yale Journal where it is stated:  “It didn’t take long for Pakistan to repel this low-scale invasion , and its government announced that it had “driven invaders from Afghanistan back across the border after six days of fighting.”  There are also sources from that time period such as the associated press, which on 5th of October stated “ Invaders Out, Pakistan Says ” and the Chicago tribune states this as well (even though you need a subscription to see the archive).  Therefore I don’t think your reasons are valid for the deletion of this article, this event in history happened and it doesn’t deserve a passing mention buried in a skirmish page.  VirtualVagabond ( talk ) 06:44, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] For the associated press.  I’m obviously saying the 5th of October in 1950, just clearing that up.  VirtualVagabond ( talk ) 07:11, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This source has no mention of it: [96] This is an article page: [97] [98] - Aparna Pande is not a scholarly source.  [99] - Not a reliable source at all.  [100] - This is not a reliable source at all, and doesn't even seem to mention it.  To simply conclude, none of these sources are entirely reliable, and some of these are entirely passing comments.  It needs to be verified by proper scholarly sources, and if it can be verified, I am still advocating for it to be otherwise merged, unless that source can explicitly state it was an invasion.  Noorullah ( talk ) 19:19, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi there, thank you for taking your time to respond.  The first source wasn’t meant to cite the invasion, rather it was supposed to cite that Afghanistan and Pakistan had a strained relationship since Pakistan’s independence, which I was talking about in the Background section.  As for the second source, according to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history) , historical articles are permitted except if they are covering present day events or events that occurred in the last two years.  Also, in the “Reliable sources for weighting and article structure” section, point 2, 4 and 8 permits different types of articles, so I’m not sure why my citation would be a problem.  For citation 3: Aparna Pande is an experienced author and journalist who works at the Hudson Institute, which suggests her reliability.  For citation 4 and 5, could you please tell me what makes them unreliable?  If you can prove so, I will be more than happy to remove/replace them, also, the fifth citation isn’t there to cite the invasion, but the unpopularity of the “Frontier Corps Balochistan”, which is a paramilitary force in Pakistan.  And I’m not sure what your definition of a passing mention is, it’s a book about a large chunk of Pakistan’s foreign policy, and the invasion was given expansion and sources in the references I gave.  The evidence for it being an invasion was given in my last comment.  VirtualVagabond ( talk ) 23:04, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I see with the first source.  @ VirtualVagabond ---- Citation 3: An author and journalist does not follow under HIST:RS.  I quote from Who is a Historian on HIST:RS " Historians carry out original research, often using primary sources. Historians often have a PhD or advanced academic training in historiography, but may have an advanced degree in a related social science field or a domain specific field;" See here as well: Wikipedia:Reliable source examples#Advice by subject area as what defines a reliable source for this matter.  --- Both the sources (for 4 and 5) are purely blog sites, which isn't reliable information especially to talk about the unpopularity of something, a reliable book would be better. --- In this case alone, the article for the second source isn't enough as its not scholarly, and there is otherwise, no scholarly source to further verify.  To prove this is an invasion, it needs a reliable secondary -- especially a scholarly source to state it is an invasion, not a contemporary news report off of what one side said during the conflict, (regarding the associated press).  Noorullah ( talk ) 00:26, 1 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: The Jamestown Foundation is a perfectly reputable research organization, working on a number of issues.  However this article in Asian Survey in 1962 calls the 1949 and 1950 fighting "border incidents."  This (in December 1955) calls it "border incidents" . ."Pakistan protested to Afghanistan for the violation of her territory by Afghan tribesmen and elements belonging to Afghan Army."  Buckshot06 (talk) 04:08, 1 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If that is true, then that is fair game, but as aforementioned by VirtualVagabond, the Jamestown foundation was cited for something else.  And seeing the other sources you provided stating that it was border incidents supports what I believe that it should be merged into the Afghanistan–Pakistan border skirmishes page.  @ Buckshot06 Noorullah ( talk ) 04:26, 1 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] My citation 3 stands, in Wikipedia:HISTRS#Who is a historian , it states: "Historians carry out original research, often using primary sources. Historians often have a PhD or advanced academic training in historiography, but may have an advanced degree in a related social science field or a domain specific field;” Aparna Pande has a degree in political science, which is a related social science, therefore her citation is viable. The fifth citation also happens to be cleared up as reliable now as seen from Buckshot06’s reply earlier. And I’m not sure how the fourth citation is a blog, but I will replace it if you want. Also from Buckshot06’s earlier reply, the word “incident” doesn’t mean it’s a skirmish. Again, it was a low-scale invasion. It was clearly an invasion due to the sources I gave and the fact that the Afghan tribesmen and army infiltrated into internationally-recognised Pakistani land, which satisfies the definition of an invasion. The Oxford Languages dictionary definition for invasion: “ an instance of invading a country or region with an armed force. ” The 1950 invasion was a clear example of this. VirtualVagabond ( talk ) 19:10, 1 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Aparna Pande is an author, not a historian. There would need to be more reliable sources that can verify such. The fifth citation (being jamestown), doesn't mention the conflict and is related to a different citation which you mentioned. The economic and political weekly is not a reliable source to cite for this. There is no reliable sources calling it an invasion as addressed. The sources buckshot added mention it as an incident, not an invasion. And on the Afghanistan–Pakistan border skirmishes , many of the skirmishes were described as incidents. Noorullah ( talk ) 21:28, 1 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Being an author and historian are not mutually exclusive my friend, you can be both. Also, at Historian , under objectivity then modern, it states “However, in the 20th-century historians incorporated social science dimensions like politics , economy, and culture in their historiography, including postmodernism.”  Pande has a degree in a social science, which is political science. The fifth citation as I have already said, isn’t citing the invasion but the unpopularity of the Frontier Corps in the province of Balochistan, you even confirmed this with Buckshot06. But you know what the odd thing is, I got that same exact source from the background section of Afghanistan–Pakistan border skirmishes , the very same article that you’re desperately pushing for this incident to stay in only. So I’m not sure what the issue is, unless it’s double standards, but I’m assuming good faith from you. 👍 Also, it being an incident, doesn’t mean it wasn’t an invasion, again, it’s not mutually exclusive. A invasion is an incident, a skirmish is an incident, a full-blown total war is an incident. Everything that happens in history is an incident my friend. That doesn’t disprove anything. VirtualVagabond ( talk ) 22:24, 1 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm sorry but having a degree in social science does not register you as an automatically reliable source, or even a historian. Citing the definition of a historian off of Wikipedia itself isn't going to help your case . I'm not sure why you are still going over the fifth citation, or what you meant after the sentence. I already addressed it twice that it is irrelevant to this AFD now. I'm not sure what you mean "unless its double standards", obtaining it from the background section there means nothing or has any correlation to this AFD. Again, no reliable sources have said it was an invasion,. Noorullah ( talk ) 00:45, 2 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If there is no reliable sources stating it is an invasion, it does not otherwise deserve its own page. The Border skirmishes page already clearly states what the definition of these include, and it applies to this article I quote: A series of occasional armed skirmishes and firefights have occurred along the Afghanistan–Pakistan border between the Afghan Armed Forces and the Pakistan Armed Forces since 1949. Noorullah ( talk ) 00:47, 2 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It was already on the page in fact, until you added a created page for it, which it does not deserve its own page for. [101] I fail to see how this deserves its own page per WP:Notability , and even WP:Verifiability , it has little to no notability in reliable academic sources. From a quick search on google books for "1950 Afghan invasion of pakistan", there is effectively no results.  Noorullah ( talk ) 00:50, 2 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] For the historian claim, I used the same link you used to claim that my citations did not meet Wikipedia guidelines, which is Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history) , as you can see, it talks about objectivity under “ Who is a historian?  , where it then takes you to the Historian page.  All in all, I simply used your guideline link you said I didn’t abide by to prove that I did.  Also, there is a source for the fact that objective historians can be people well-versed in social sciences outside Wikipedia, it’s: Georg G. Iggers, Historiography in the Twentieth Century: From Scientific Objectivity to the Postmodern Challenge , 1-4.  Also, we can always have differences in who a historian is, Pande published a book in a historical political fashion, and she has not just made it about Pakistan but various other countries, documenting on the HISTORICAL context behind current-day events.  Also, you never clearly said it was irrelevant to the AfD, you  brung up the fact that it had nothing to do with the invasion a second time, even though we were past it at that stage.  Again, the sources I gave you clearly states it was an invasion, and what the Afghans did can be fully classified as an invasion, as they violated another nation’s sovereign territory.  As with Google Books, that of course would happen, there were a lot of variations, one said low-scale invasion and the other would say another.  Also a lot of sources of this were present around the time of the invasion, some of which were in 1950 itself, so of course they wouldn’t say 1950 invasion.  In conclusion, there were no set name for the invasion, but I used the year to make things run smoother, such as prevention from confusion with the Bajaur Campaign , if you have a more appropriate name, you can give me a appropriate name to move it to, or if you would like to.  Also, I imagine a lot of the sources for this invasion to be written in Urdu or Pashto, none of which I am fluent in, this therefore blocks me off to a large number of citations I could use.  VirtualVagabond ( talk ) 02:08, 2 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] My point remains: the Jamestown Foundation is reliable; there's no justification for disparaging its analysis.  Buckshot06 (talk) 04:41, 1 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Military , Afghanistan ,  and Pakistan .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 11:48, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per analysis by Noorullah.  The battle fails WP:GNG .  Aman Kumar Goel ( Talk ) 09:32, 2 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It has been documented in books, journals, newspapers from that time and probably many more, giving it significant coverage.  VirtualVagabond ( talk ) 11:20, 2 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I am yet to see anything substantial from reliable sources.  Raymond3023 ( talk ) 16:07, 2 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hello, could you please tell me why my sources aren’t credible?  If so, I am willing to accept whatever the result of this AfD brings.  VirtualVagabond ( talk ) 16:15, 2 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per above analysis.  Toadette ( Happy holiday! ) 17:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Afghanistan–Pakistan border skirmishes .  Whether or not the fighting was technically an invasion, most sources do not call it that, and it was small.  Buckshot06 (talk) 19:35, 3 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi, could you please show me some sources that do not classify it as an invasion but as something else that contradicts it?  Thanks.  VirtualVagabond ( talk ) 21:00, 3 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm sorry but asking others for a source against it does not require them to post one.  YOU are supposed to do so with a reliable source, see WP:ONUS .  Noorullah ( talk ) 21:46, 3 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi, you’re right and I completely understand, but my points with you still stand.  But we have differing views on what constitutes a historian.  VirtualVagabond ( talk ) 22:32, 3 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Given the scarcity of any scholarly sources, I don't see a reason for keeping the article or merging it somewhere.  Azuredivay ( talk ) 09:16, 4 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  At first I thought this can be merged, but even that is difficult for me to support.  desmay ( talk ) 23:25, 6 December 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: delete