Religious conversions in Pakistan

Religious conversions in Pakistan (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)

This page should be deleted as an attack page. The page seems to exist primarily to disparage Islam in Pakistan, and contains material that is entirely negative in tone. It is superficially well-sourced; but much of the material appears to have been selectively harvested from other Wikipedia pages - this is shown by reference names (ref name=), access dates, and that some of the URLs are dead. If the creator had looked at the URLs he/she would have seen that they were dead and either not used them, or used a web archive to find the contents.

The real subject of this article is forced conversion to Islam in Pakistan. Other articles already cover this topic from a neutral point of view (e.g Religious Minorities in Pakistan and Hinduism in Pakistan).

The logs show that pages called Forced conversion to Islam in Pakistan were deleted on 28 November 2019 and 5 June 2020. The logs show that a page called Religious conversions in Pakistan was started in February 2020, but later changed to a redirect and deleted on 5 June 2020. -- Toddy1 (talk) 13:11, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article should not be speedy deleted as an attack or a negative unsourced biography of a living person, because... (all the contents are well sourced and every Pakistan related article seems like an attack piece simply because those articles are based on actual facts - this is just another similar article. We need a unique article for Religious conversions in Pakistan as conversions are unique in Pakistan and matter related to conversions cannot be a part of another article.)

An admin, PhilKnight has already declined to speedy delete the article here.—Dr2Rao (talk) 13:38, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Z1720 (talk) 14:04, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Z1720 (talk) 14:04, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If I have put up anything without citing a reference please let me know. However, every Pakistan related article seems like an attack piece simply because those articles are based on actual facts - this is just another similar article.—Dr2Rao (talk) 14:23, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have added what could be a response for each sentence as well. Whatever happened to Rinkle Kumari finally, whatever happened to the 15 year old kidnapped in January this year in the court, the failed Bill to outlaw conversions etc. - all have been added with citations.—Dr2Rao (talk) 14:34, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the articles mentioned by Toddy1, Religious Minorities in Pakistan and Hinduism in Pakistan which he claims are "neutral point of view" and they also mention the attacks on minorities, so this article should also be considered to be "neutral point of view".—Dr2Rao (talk) 15:56, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Religion in Pakistan, until such a time as someone can write an article that isn't filled with OR, and can demonstrate that it has been treated as a topic in reliable sources. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:24, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to what Vanamonde93? All the sentences of that article have references cited so why do you call it OR? I will try to change it if you tell me how.—Dr2Rao (talk) 01:32, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr2Rao: The point you keep missing is that it isn't sufficient for content to have a citation; the citation must clearly support all of the content it is used for. That is not the case with respect to many citations here, and it has frequently not been the case with content you have added. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:24, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I copied sentences along with the cited references from other articles and it is possible that those sentences were not formed as they should have been. I will correct the sentences to match the citations but please don't delete the article.—Dr2Rao (talk) 04:50, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that you can also point out some sentences that need correction on the talk page of the article.—Dr2Rao (talk) 05:09, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry, I have no time to check every sentence of an article that was deleted because of how bad it was. This needs to be started from scratch if it's to exist at all. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:18, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article clearly passes WP:N and WP:V. As for the nominator's rationale that it should be part of two already existing articles, conversions and minorities are not the same. However, I do feel that Forced Conversions ... would be a more suitable title, but that can be handled at a later stage. As for neutrality, NPOV related issues can be fixed, they don't warrant a deletion discussion. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 23:15, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain how it meets WP:GNG? The sources in the article talk about individual events of conversion and not an actual topic of "religious conversion in Pakistan". I don't see any scholarly sources that give the purported topic significant coverage.VR _talk 05:43, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vice regent, so can you justify this article on New York Times? It talks about dozens of Hindus getting converted - hence a forceful conversion. Then there is this scholarly article which you demanded by the Modern Diplomacy and few others like this and this. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 06:34, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]