Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pakistan administered Kashmir

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result was redirect to Kashmir (disambiguation)#Kashmir region. Not surprisingly, this is a topic which engenders much debate. Some people did point out that "Pakistan administered Kashmir" is a term that's used in many WP:RS, and is apparently the term used by the United Nations. However, most people here felt that this article was a WP:POVFORK, and as such did not merit a stand-alone article. I didn't see any arguments on either side which were so obviously invalid that they should be ignored, so the weight of numbers ruled the day here. Depending on how you count some of the more nuanced comments, things are running about 2:1 against keeping.

Worth noting is that there's been long-term disagreement about the use of "controlled" vs "occupied" vs "administered". They all have similar meanings, but with subtle differences in tone. It's unlikely there will ever been complete agreement on which is the best word to describe the current situation.

Even amongst the people arguing to delete, I get the impression that they'd be OK with going back to the way things used to be, i.e. a redirect. There's no real consensus on what the best redirect target would be, so I've gone with the most recent redirect before this was expanded into a full article on 7 December 2018. I will leave it up to other editors to modify the target as a normal part of editorial discretion, but for now it will remain a redirect. I only ask that people try to reach consensus on any redirect changes through discussion rather than through edit-warring. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:12, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan administered Kashmir

Pakistan administered Kashmir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is a content fork of Kashmir conflict, Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan, created on a less popular redirect. This is only a term used for referring two of the states (Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan) that are administered by Pakistan. "Azad Kashmir" and "Gilgit-Baltistan" are separate from each other as political units. There should be no need to create an article which treats them as same.

The more popular redirect is Pakistan-administered Kashmir and has significant talk page history on its talk page Talk:Pakistan-administered Kashmir. According to that talk page, a similar article was turned into redirect before after this AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pakistan occupied Kashmir. Qualitist (talk) 19:15, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

• Pakistan administered Kashmir (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
• Pakistan controlled Kashmir (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
• Pakistan occupied Kashmir (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

• Keep I am the creator of the article and this geo article is at AfD only because the nominator seems to have issues with me and is hounding me everywhere. As for the Article, "Pakistan administered Kashmir" is the term by which UN refers to this area of Azad Kashmir + Gilgit Baltistan.^[1] And this is the term by which the neutral international mainstream media refers this geographical entity,^[2] "Pakistani controlled Kashmir" is the other widely used term for the same Geo area.^[3] Indian mainstream media calls this exact territory as Pakistan occupied Kashmir. The subject is the title of several books.^{[4][5][6][7][8]} Some sources, for the notability of this Geo Article are^[9][10]--DBigXrayᗙ 19:35, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 20:00, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 20:00, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 20:00, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 20:00, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 20:00, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or restore redirect - If we can only create a POV fork then we really don't need this page. I also see that Indian administered Kashmir is still a redirect and so this needs to be. Satpal Dandiwal (talk) 05:57, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

see WP:OSE, Also your comparison is flawed. Not sure if you are aware of it or not, but in any case and for the help of others let me clarify this straight.

1. Jammu and Kashmir is the geographical entity that represents Indian administered Kashmir hence the redirect Indian administered Kashmir points to Jammu and Kashmir.
2. Pakistan administered Kashmir internationally refers to the combined geographical entity of "Azad Kashmir + Gilgit-Baltistan", the two parts of Kashmir.

It is fallacious to redirect Pakistan administered Kashmir to Azad Kashmir since they are not the same entities. --DBigXrayᗙ 08:13, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This seems to be one of the good old India-Pakistan bugbears, one side arguing for the article and the other side against. On rational grounds, "Pakistan-administered Kashmir" is a well-attested term, covered in reliable sources. For example, this recent scholarly book^[1] has a section on Pakistan-administered Kashmir and 20+ other occurrences.
  • Kashmir has an obvious international dimension to it, and internationally Pakistan-administered Kashmir is one unit even if Pakistan were to administer it internally as two separate provinces. There is in fact a single ministry in the central government that deals with both of them.
  • As to what this article might cover other than what is covered in Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan articles, I expect that it would focus on the "Pakistan-administered" aspect: why Pakistan administers it and how Pakistan administers it. A certain amount of overlap with the other articles is inevitable.

Perhaps all these issues should have been discussed on the article talk page rather than in a rushed AfD. The nom was apparently advised to do so. The previous AfD that the nom points to is entirely irrelevant, because its decision was to redirect "Pakistan-occupied Kashmir" precisely to this article! So, if anything, the previous AfD assumed the existence of this article. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:41, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Kautilya3's well reasoned rationale. SpinningSpark 12:09, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect This is obviously a WP:POVFORK 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 BD2412, R'n'B, Orangemike who participated in past discussions and still appears to be actively editing. Radhamadhab Sarangi ^{(Talk2Me|Contribs)} 13:32, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to what ? which "multiple" RFCs are you referring to ? the links you gave are only of local discussions. The only widely held discussion was previous AfD which was closed as a redirect to Pakistan-administered Kashmir which was an article at that time.

The POVFORK argument held true for "Pakistan occupied Kashmir". Pakistan administered Kashmir is the neutral term by which this geographic entity is referred internationally, so it begs to question whose POV is it ? --DBigXrayᗙ 14:23, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore redirect Per WP:POVFORK. It is best not to create articles that are already covered in other separate articles. No attempt was made to gain consensus either. The sources provided here does not show how this topic is distinct or it can be differently covered than what it has already been at Kashmir conflict, Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan. Capankajsmilyo^{(Talk | Infobox assistance)} 01:13, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The same rebutted argument is being repeated again. The geographic entity Pakistan administered Kashmir refers to Azad Kashmir "and" Gilgit Baltistan. redirecting it to Azad Kashmir is not only inappropriate but factually wrong. The Geo article is on a subject that is different from the subject of the three articles You have listed. --DBigXrayᗙ 08:21, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect Move to Pakistan occupied Kashmir. I performed Google searches and following are the results (which basically sums-up the situation).

1) Google Books:

• 1.1) Pakistan administered Kashmir: 3,150 results.
• 1.2) Pakistan controlled Kashmir: 2,520 results.
• 1.3) Pakistan occupied Kashmir: 13,200 results (more than 2.3 times of 1.1 and 1.2 put together).

2) Google:

• 2.1) Pakistan administered Kashmir: 98,800 results.
• 2.2) Pakistan controlled Kashmir: 24,600 results.
• 2.3) Pakistan occupied Kashmir: 309,000 results (more than 2.5 times of 2.1 and 2.2 put together)

It is very evident that the term for the territory always has been Pakistan occupied Kashmir; hence the article should be redirected moved accordingly. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 10:51, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I am not sure if someone used Google trends for the three phrases. Here is the trend analysis. Article must be moved to Pakistan occupied Kashmir. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 11:08, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Using google counts to find a POV free title amongst sources that are likely to be intrinsically POV is fraught with problems. Given the relative sizes of populations in India and Pakistan, one would expect the difference in result numbers to be even greater. The fact that it isn't speaks against your argument. At the very least, it shows these statistics are useless. SpinningSpark 11:16, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Arun We are here discussing if the article needs to be kept or deleted. if you want the title to be changed, then the procedure to do that will be to start a WP:RM discussion on the talk page, after this article is kept. --DBigXrayᗙ 21:44, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment DBigXray is right that prior to this article being created Pakistan-administered Kashmir was being redirected to Azad Kashmir. That was done in 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 WP:OR and factually wrong, because the reliable source I gave above [1] clearly shows both Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan being parts of "Pakistan-administered Kashmir". The old redirect is not acceptable. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:33, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• You should read other pages of your linked source which reads the term ("Pakistan occupied Kashmir" aka "Pakistan-administered Kashmir") is used "in three ways" by Indians.[2] One of that "way" includes the reference of "Pakistan-administered Kashmir" as "Azad Kashmir", like your source reads. It creates confusion that which region is being referred when you are using this term and that is what the source reads. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 14:03, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't understand the logic. If Indians misuse terms in a certain way, Wikipedia should misuse them too?!? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:36, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Point is that former redirect was completely justifiable per scholarly sources and your own source, contrary to your comment. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 04:40, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, I accept that the old redirect had a rationale (the Indian abuse of terminology). However, the present discussion is regarding a full article on the real Pakistan-administered Kashmir. Some folks here have commented that the new article is not needed because the old redirect was good enough. That argument isn't valid, because the criteria for the presence of redirects and that for articles are entirely different. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:23, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete because its mostly content copied from other articles. It is nothing but content duplication. No such geographic or political entity exists. Its only a term that can satisfactorily be described in some other article. The Donkey King (talk) 13:28, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

reliable sources such as the CNN and BBC show with pics that this geographic entity exists. Regarding the political entity, please note that Ministry of Kashmir Affairs and Gilgit-Baltistan looks upon affairs of Azad Kashmir and Gilglit Baltistan. --DBigXrayᗙ 22:06, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is Ministry of Kashmir Affairs and Gilgit-Baltistan and it makes no sense to treat it as Ministry of Pakistan administered Kashmir, like you are doing. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 04:40, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are misrepresenting me, My point is, Even Pakistani Federal government has a seperate Ministry to look into the affairs of the geographic entity that is known as "Pakistan Administered Kashmir". Obviously Pakistani Federal government doesn't need to worry about wikipedias rule of WP:COMMONNAME and neutrality to decide what it is going to call this ministry and they can call their ministry whatever they want. --DBigXrayᗙ 10:11, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or restore redirect - Per nom and my comment above. Only issue should be that where this article should redirect. The 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".[3][4][5][6] 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. WP:POVFORK applies here. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 14:11, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• On the contrary to your claim above, our article Azad Kashmir does not claim that Azad Kashmir includes, "Gilgit Baltistan". You should check out the refs in that article once again. --DBigXrayᗙ 22:06, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didnt talked about what is written on our article of Azad Kashmir so your comment is a red herring. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 04:40, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you would care to check, what the Pakistan Government mentions as Azad Kashmir (check this map) on their official website gov.pk, and notice the contradiction to your statement there as well, they don't include Gilgit Baltistan in Azad Kashmir. --DBigXrayᗙ 10:50, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Not all scholarly sources are well-informed about the situation, and for good reasons. Until 1990s, Pakistan did not even reveal that Gilgit-Baltistan had been irrevocably separated from Azad Kashmir. (See the Karachi Agreement page.) In her well-regarded book,^[1] scholar Navnita Chadha Behera comments that these mountainous regions had been "enveloped in multiple and overwhelming silences". So, you cannot use the fact that there are some ill-informed sources as a justification for propagating the same kind of ill-information here. And, I wonder if blocking an article from being written here is also a contribution to these silences.-- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:44, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Moreover, your sources appear to be random Google hits, without any effort to check their reliability. One is out of date (from 1968) [7], another a footnote in a paper on computational modelling [8], the third an article from a "Business Review" [9] and the fourth a working paper that is not peer-reviewed [10]. All they show is that some reasonable sources continue to use the out-of-date terminology. They cannot contradict the in-depth sources like Snedden and Behera or other sources that DBigXray has provided. Please pay attention to WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:39, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merger proposal The article in question be merged into Azad Kashmir rather than deleting. Please have a look at its talk page thanks Farooqahmadbhat (talk) 17:44, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment

• 
  Gilgit-Baltistan shown in Red
• 
  Azad Kashmir Shown in Red
• 
  Pakistan administered Kashmir Shown in Red
• 
  Pakistan Administered Kashmir shown light green and marked as Zona Ocupada per Paquistan
• 
  Three regions of Kashmir, shown in white and divided by dotted lines. Pakistan administered Kashmir in the left, Indian Administered Kashmir in center and China administered Kashmir on the right.

References to verify the images above:

• CNN: Kashmir Fast Facts
• "BBC: Kashmir profile". 3 October 2017 – via www.bbc.com.
• Pakistan Government map of Azad Kashmir on the official website gov.pk

Let us look at the maps of the terms being used here. Clearly one can see that the geographical area known by the world as Pakistan administered Kashmir is not the same as what is known as Azad Kashmir. And this article is neither a POVFORK nor a redundant duplicate of Azad Kashmir. As some of the folks have suggested above, this article should stay at its own location. Any suggestion to redirect Pakistan administered Kashmir to Azad Kashmir is not based on facts.--DBigXrayᗙ 21:20, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep first, I've advertised this AfD at Talk:Kashmir. Second, terms such as Indian Kashmir have a clear redirect target - the Indian state Jammu and Kashmir. It's clear that both Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan are part of the Kashmir region. There is a lot of overlap, but that doesn't prohibit separate articles; The Maritimes and Atlantic Canada overlap quite a lot as well. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:45, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, a poorly created redundant WP:POVFORK. 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.[11] --Umar shahid (talk) 14:27, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Perhaps it is better to create a DAB page pointing to both GB and AJK. For Indian-administered Kashmir it clearly refers to JK but Pakistan-administered Kashmir can refer to both or either territories. I was a bit confused as to what Pakistan-administered Kashmir refers to especially due to the notes [1]/[2] placed on both AJK and JK articles but no notes regarding the same on the GB article. (Seeing this a similar note should probably be added there.). Gotitbro (talk) 21:10, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a "both or either" situation. Please check the sources presented above. Since the beginning of the Kashmir dispute, the entire area of Kashmir under Pakistani control is called "Pakistan administered Kashmir", Pakistan have renamed the regions several times, which may have confused some, but the definition of this geographic entity of "Pakistan administered Kashmir" has never changed for the international mainstream media and the UN and it includes both territories AK and GB [12]. --DBigXrayᗙ 21:25, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Redundant fork created without consensus. Isn't  Pakistan-administered Kashmir the right word? Anyway, the subject is already described enough times in numerous articles that we dont need this page. Wikipedia is certainly not to be used for advancing nationalist POV. Syed Zain Ul Abideen Bukhari (talk) 06:40, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please clarify which existing article is redundant to Pakistan administered Kashmir. IMHO Pakistan-administered Kashmir may or may not be a better title, but WP:AfD is not the place to discuss a better title, WP:RM is the place. You state "numerous articles" but haven't listed even one. This term is used internationally by neutral mainstream media and the UN, so whose POV are you referring to ? As power~enwiki has mentioned above with an example, it is common for Geographic articles to have some overlap if there are common territories, that doesn't make the article redundant and fit for deletion.--DBigXrayᗙ 09:52, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you didn't know about the accurate title for the subject, yet you created this article against consensus. Sources refers the regions separately. They only mention "Pakistan-administered Kashmir" when they are talking about territorial disputes between India and Pakistan or things related to the conflict and at the same time they also give details about "Indian-administered Kashmir".[13][14][15] This includes sources from mainstream media and the UN which you have linked.  Now we can't preserve a "Pakistan administered Kashmir" while avoid creating Indian-administered Kashmir, because we are not here for advancing nationalist POV. We don't need articles on both subjects since they have been already described enough times in numerous articles. Syed Zain Ul Abideen Bukhari (talk) 12:22, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please read your first comment above, you said this is a "redundant fork" without mentioning redundant fork of "which existing article". When I asked you to clarify your comment you are skirting my question. This is offtopic but you should know that an article for the geographic entity known as Indian-administered Kashmir already exists. If you want to rename that existing article please start a WP:RM discussion to rename that to something else. As you might know already, (since you could not find one, to answer my question), there is no Geographic article about the geographic entity known as Pakistan administered Kashmir other than the one that I have created. So instead of arguing about what I have done and not done, we should be discussing about why this article should be kept or deleted since we are already at AfD now. --DBigXrayᗙ 14:15, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I ignored that pointless question because nearly a dozen of editors have already named the articles like Kashmir, Gilgit-Baltistan, Azad Kashmir, Kashmir conflict and others from where you have forked the content for creating the article and you have also admitted the same.[16] Indian-administered Kashmir is a redirect and we also have articles "for the geographic entity known as" Pakistan-administered Kashmir, that is why you don't need a redundant fork. Credible sources provide same treatment to both Indian-administered Kashmir and Pakistan-administered Kashmir and same  has been done on Wikipedia until turned redirect into an article page without consensus. I am recommending you to stop replying only for the sake of replying. Better read and think whenever you decide to reply and in this case you don't have to reply every single time because you are just worsening your weak argument by repeating it tirelessly. Syed Zain Ul Abideen Bukhari (talk) 15:36, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The geographic entity Pakistan-administered Kashmir is not the same as the geographic entity of Kashmir or Gilgit-Baltistan or Azad Kashmir. Each of them has its own different map, which is different from the other. So no, this is not a "redundant" article but a geographic article representing a unique geographic entity. and FYI,  Pakistan-administered Kashmir had existed before at that location and that article was removed without a wider discussion. So again, instead of discussing about what was done and what was not done, it will help the AfD if we keep our arguements focussed on for or against the notability of this article in question.--DBigXrayᗙ 16:23, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to maybe Kashmir#Current_status_and_political_divisions. The terms Pakistan-administered Kashmir and Indian-administered Kashmir are both standard neutral terms. The best place to explain this is the main Kashmir article (it is briefly mentioned in the introduction). My suggestion would be to keep this as a redirect and explain the terms in the main article where the context is provided. This avoid too much fragmentation and yet preserves the information.--DreamLinker (talk) 20:19, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- possibly renamed. Kashmir is de facto partitioned between India and Pakistan. Whether the two halves are "administered", "occupied", or "controlled" is a matter of POV - whether the speaker has an Indian or Pakistani POV. There is no formal border, only a cease-fire line or line of control. WP needs to find a NPOV term. How about Pakistani Kashmir? This avoids the question of which verb to use. Merging or redirecting is not an option, since it covers both Gilgit-Baltistan or Azad Kashmir. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:39, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I thought a DAB page would be fine but after seeing the discussion at Talk:Pakistan-administered Kashmir seems like it would be incorrect as that indicates ambiguity exists when it doesn't (the term refers to both the territories). The article was previously unanimously disambiguated then without clear consensus redirected to Kashmir.
  
  A redirect won't suffice as well, a broad target such a Kashmir isn't correct, DAB fails and an article which covers Kashmir under Pakistan is needed here. (While Jammu and Kashmir and Aksai Chin both cover histories of the region under their respective countries no such article is there for Pakistan.) Also, I fail to see what is POV or POVFORK here the term is a widely used neutral one and the article simply covers the administration of the region. Gotitbro (talk) 19:58, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kashmir, Gilgit-Baltistan and Azad Kashmir already cover content about Pakistan's Kashmir. Nothing new appears to be discussed on this article. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:00, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kashmir, Gilgit-Baltistan and Azad Kashmir articles represent different geographic entities than Pakistan administered Kashmir. it is irrational to treat all these articles as same. See my comments below for more. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:31, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/Redirect: Per WP:POVFORK, 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 Syed Zain Ul Abideen Bukhari describes and that is why we can't just create a "Pakistani-administered Kashmir" against long term consensus[17] 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. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:00, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1. WP:POVFORK talks about both article on the "same subject". There is "no other article" for the same subject (geographical entity). It is quite obvious from the maps itself (see above) that the geographic entities of Pakistan administered Kashmir are not the same as either Azad Kashmir or Gilgit-Baltistan.
2. If there was an existing Pakistan administered Kashmir and then someone created another article at "Pakistan occupied Kashmir" then one could have argued that its a POV FORK, but with only 1 existing article for the subject you cannot claim WP:FORK, let alone WP:POVFORK
3. Long term consensus was to keep this article at location Pakistan-administered Kashmir where it existed from 2004 [18], till 2012 [19] when the article was unilaterally merged into separate articles without a wider consensus at AfD.
4. Regarding the point of "nothing new here", note that this geographic entity is federally administered by Government of Pakistan's Ministry of Kashmir Affairs and Gilgit-Baltistan. The United Nations and the international media refer to this entire region as Pakistan administered Kashmir, so this article can discuss the history, administration and geography of this geographic entity.--DBigXrayᗙ 12:28, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect per nom, Shiv Sahil and Syed Zain. Completely unnecessary to create another article only for repeating what we already have repeated around. These kinds of creations do not help encyclopedia but encourage more WP:POVFORKs. Srkamal (talk) 16:28, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Srkamal, you posted here on the talk page of this article, opposing merger and saying that "Yes, it should continue to be a separate article" and now you have made a complete volte face here, can you clarify why ? The points that you raised area already discussed above. --DBigXrayᗙ 17:40, 15 December 2018 (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.