Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Research and Analysis Wing activities in Pakistan

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 delete. This is a very difficult close due to the high number of participants that can be said to have either a pro-India or pro-Pakistan POV. On balance, I am persuaded that the article does have a strong POV and large parts are a content fork. Many have brought up the WP:ATD argument that it is better to improve than delete. Against that others have argued, per WP:TNT, that it is better to start over with a clean page. On this point I am particularly influenced by the research of Gazoth into the quality of the refs. To argue that the page should be improved presupposes that there are sources from which an improvement can be built. Many sources have been put forward, but no reliable, neutral source has been presented that discusses RAW in Pakistan in detail as a subject. To be sure, there are sources out there that discuss individual actions of RAW, but no scholarly source giving a balanced overview of the whole subject that could be used as the basis of a neutral article has been put forward. It is not essential to have such sources to build an article, it is possible to construct an article from sources that are not neutral and do not cover the whole subject, but this is much harder. It would need an editor of unquestionable neutrality to achieve that, and there would still be a need for at least one source that treated the title as a subject in itself to show notability. SpinningSpark 23:04, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

RAW activities in Pakistan

RAW activities 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)

WP:POVFORK of Research and Analysis Wing. The entire page has a total of 4 sources all Pakistan newspapers. Has been proposed for deletion multiple times but the same editor insists that they have "balanced" this article. Much of the article is based on speculation and large parts of it are either poorly sourced or unsourced. Adamgerber80 (talk) 00:23, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 02:37, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 02:37, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 02:37, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 02:37, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 02:37, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Comment How is the India Today (newspaper) a Pakistani newspaper? One of my references is India Today newspaper. Let the Wikipedia designated staff decide after they look at the article what the facts are. You clearly say on your User page that you are from Bombay, India. How can you be the ONLY JUDGE about this article's fate? Ngrewal1 (talk) 01:13, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Ngrewal1 Another independent editor GeneralizationsAreBad had also marked this page as a POV fork earlier (a year ago) and proposed it for deletion. You were the same editor who had removed it then by adding some "references" from Pakistani newspapers. Even now after it was proposed for deletion a year later you again removed it by adding more references from Pakistani newspapers and a single line from an Indian newspaper. Please look at WP:NPOV which this article grossly violates. Also, have a look at the Research and Analysis Wing article where most of this is covered with WP:DUE weight age. Now, when it comes to my nationality, please be careful about your wording. I don't claim to be a judge of anything and have thus bought this at a common forum. If you doubt the effectiveness of this forum then I cannot help you. Adamgerber80 (talk) 02:44, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Delete Article written to promote a specific POV and fails WP:NEUTRAL. Already covered under Research and Analysis Wing. --Hagennos^Talk 04:10, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
• SNOW KEEP The nom should peruse WP:BEFORE. There are numerous academic sources that discuss this in detail. For example India: Foreign Policy & Government Guide, Volume 1 , What We Won: America's Secret War in Afghanistan, 1979 89 by Bruce Riedel , India's External Intelligence: Secrets of Research & Analysis Wing (RAW) by V. K. Singh , International Security and the United States: An Encyclopedia, Volume 1 by Karl R. DeRouen, Paul Bellamy etc. etc. Elektricity (talk) 05:01, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

This seems to be a hastily put up list of references. The second and fourth references don't have more than a few lines about Research and Analysis Wing itself and make a passing reference to Pakistan. The first and third references contain some more information again which is about in general Research and Analysis Wing. if there is some information which can be integrated with the main article with no reason to maintain this fork. I am yet to see any form of substantial information which can sustain an independent article and cannot be added in the main one. Adamgerber80 (talk) 05:53, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

@Adamgerber80 Your argument for deletion was The entire page has a total of 4 sources all Pakistan newspapers. I have shown you multiple academic sources discussing RAW activities within Pakistan, hence rendering the deletion argument null and void. You claim that information from these sources (and perhaps the 32 thousand other book results as well) can be incorporated in the main article, but I disagree. The main should focus on RAW and its day to day business, with a prolonged operational history in Pakistan; this should have been forked a long time ago. Your Second argument that you made in a comment is that the article may vioate POV forking. This is again, I'm afraid, not true. The article does not point to anything as fact, which is common in articles about clandestine agencies. Rather it says what the reliable sources have said and then attributes the information to reliable sources. As I said , you should have read WP:BEFORE. Elektricity (talk) 09:17, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

The sources you point are about Research and Analysis Wing and not it's activities in Pakistan. I can "find" references for many things but the question also remains do we have enough neutral reliable content which is needed for an individual article or can it be incorporated in the original one. You haven't shown any significant content here which merits a separate one. Just running a quick keyword search on Google Books is not going to work. Adamgerber80 (talk) 15:10, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Keep of course. Nominator hasn't explained what is POVFORK about the topic. Issues about article material, if any, should be taken to the talk. That's not what WP:AFD is for. So far as the topic is concerned, it meets WP:GNG from all criteria. There's a long history of espionage and cross-border intelligence from India to Pakistan, and it's covered in all reliable, academic sources. The cases of Kulbhushan Jadhav, Ravindra Kaushik, Sarabjit Singh and Kashmir Singh are amongst the most notable ones to merit mention. And at the international and diplomatic level, Pakistan and India have for decades traded allegations on RAW activities, right from the heads of state to military and government levels. So there is no question as far as notability is concerned, and this article is of equivalent scale to topics like ISI activities in India, CIA activities in India etc. Mar4d (talk) 08:02, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
• Keep Yeah, may be the article needs expanding to become more readable, but compering it with Research and Analysis Wing isn't correct. The latter concentrates on the organization itself, where this one is more specific. Why need a separate article? Well, enough coverage exists for this topic to qualify WP:GNG.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 09:24, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
• Delete WP:POVFORK per nominator. The above WP:OSE argument for pursuing NPOV violation makes it even easier to a ackowledge why this article should be deleted. — MapSGV (talk) 12:11, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Interesting to see you acquainted with all these acronyms in your such short time of editing. Perhaps if you had actually also read WP:OSE, you would have known it's an essay, and more fittingly, the following: The rationale may be valid in some contexts but not in other. The argument about notability stands and you have not dis-proven it. Mar4d (talk) 13:33, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Unreliable sources never establish notability however... — MapSGV (talk) 13:49, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Delete. Mostly unsourced WP:POVFORK. Expand Research and Analysis Wing if you want, but I am sure much of the content of this POV fork can get rejected there too. Raymond3023 (talk) 13:02, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
• Speedy delete clear WP:CFORK of Research and Analysis Wing that was created by an SPA to promote a POV. Lorstaking (talk) 13:12, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
• Strong delete per WP:POVFORK and WP:RIGHTINGGREATWRONGS. Non-notable subject, creation also seems suspicious. Capitals00 (talk) 15:33, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect to the article on RAW, India's intelligence agency (or stubify). As Pakistan is India's most likely military opponent (if it goes to war), Pakistan must inevitably be a major focus for India's spying. This is a horrid article, which seems to be built on Pakistan's arrest of two alleged spies. If that is what they are, the article will still only be dealing with a snippet of what RAW musty be doing. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:10, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
• Delete - Not enough sources or coverage to pass GNG. Either way it is only based on some heavily disputed allegations and article itself reads like WP:SYNTH. D4iNa4 (talk) 19:08, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
• Delete as per WP:NOT#ESSAY, WP:NOTPROPAGANDA, article is ill-sourced, POV article treating as fact Pakistani government allegations that the government o of India is supporting Baloch "terrorism" in Pakistan. Here's a little backgorund form the BBC: What lies behind Pakistani charges of Indian 'terrorism'.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:48, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
• Keep. This issue is gaining greater momentum these days. Quite notable in the region, so it should be a keep.  M A A Z   T A L K  06:41, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Then why we have no reliable sources to confirm it? Can you address the issues raised above regarding lack of notability? — MapSGV (talk) 06:56, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I've just mentioned 6 more reliable sources. There are many actually, if you search them.  M A A Z   T A L K  07:02, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

They are not scholarly. You need to find totally independent ones. MapSGV (talk) 08:14, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Mentioned many references now. Most references are international or scholarly. Only 5 or 6 references mentioned are from Pakistan news media. 23-24 are exclusive of Paki references.  M A A Z   T A L K  23:50, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes I looked at your references. Most of them still state the same thing "according to Pakistan". Also, please do due diligence when you add references. For one, you literally added someones comment in the comment section as a reference here. Just don't google and add, please spend some time in reading the reference you are adding. Adamgerber80 (talk) 00:28, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually I haven't found the according to Pakistan words in may references. Secondly, if an international news channel mentions a Pakistani narrative, it doesn't mean that its an unreliable source, but on the contrary, it adds to notability.  M A A Z   T A L K  21:54, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• Delete. Clear WP:POVFORK of Research and Analysis Wing. —MBL ^Talk 08:41, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
• Delete. There is no content there that cannot be covered in Research and Analysis Wing. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:25, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
• Merge - add and update Research and Analysis Wing, this does not need to stand alone. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 21:32, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
• Keep the article is as notable as other related articles like Inter-Services Intelligence activities in India etc. The fork-based arguments are seemingly are quite close to WP:ITSCRUFT and then there is WP:ATD.  samee  ^talk 14:45, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Yours is nothing but WP:ILIKEIT because you are using WP:OSE argument and thinking that it becomes automatically notable just because there is another similar article, which is actually notable. This WP:POVFORK is not notable. — MapSGV (talk) 15:01, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Sure as if your pretzelling ain't WP:IDL. I don't get your bludgeoning to keep !votes, you've already made your point, why such a desperation.  samee  ^talk 15:28, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Should I WP:ILIKE a multiple times prodded article? If I had, then your reaction would be just different but I am fine. Right now every comment is up for debate and you can also debate until things AFD is over. — MapSGV (talk) 15:47, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 February 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:34, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Keep by WP:GNG. We can always dig out non-Pakistani sources to protect NPOV. A topic like RAW activities in Pakistan seems nothing difficult.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 20:34, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

It fails WP:GNG. You are suggesting that we should abandon concerns of this article and work on them in future.. why not now? By deleting the POVFORK. — MapSGV (talk) 01:34, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• Delete - I am seeing the article has been expanded since the nomination but now it looks like an WP:OR and still remains a non-notable WP:POVFORK. desmay (talk) 00:44, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

34 references mentioned. Probably 5-6 references each paragraph. How is this OR work?  M A A Z   T A L K  00:59, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Because all of those references fail to describe the importance of this trivia. By your own comment it seems that you have worked on over citing references than actually providing any relevant references, but that's not really possible because subject is itself not qualified for own article. — MapSGV (talk) 01:06, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Not much of what you are saying makes sense to me. I have worked on citing references than actually providing references? that is quite contradictory. And references, especially international sources and google books doesn't fail to describe importance of an article, but on the contrary it adds to their importance. I think you are being slightly inconsistent here.  M A A Z   T A L K  21:57, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• Keep - individual issues can be discussed without resorting to total deletion of the page. Also agree with user samee ‘s reasoning above.Willard84 (talk) 01:24, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Issues are with failure of notability, WP:POVFORKing none of which can be addressed without deletion. — MapSGV (talk) 01:28, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

There’s a lot of at least alleged activity and information, especially in regards to recent events with Jadhav. I retain my view as keep.Willard84 (talk) 11:37, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• Delete and merge to Research and Analysis Wing: I see no reason why this subject meets GNG when it is just a WP:CFORK, largely depending on two allegations refuted by everyone. It also seems to be a violation of WP:NOTPROPAGANDA. I recommend merging this into the "Research and Analysis Wing" article, where we can devote an appropraite amount of space to it. A separate article is WP:UNDUE. --1990'sguy (talk) 04:51, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable, POV. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 05:47, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
• Delete Agree with nominator that this is a WP:POVFORK. The article only focuses on a single viewpoint of RAW involvement, in spite of many refs giving substantial weight to opinions that accusations have been made to cover-up internal issues. (, , , ). A substantial part of article is either a list of accusations or statements of Indian involvement in general rather than RAW specifically. There are also multiple sourcing issues in the article including statement contradicted by reference placed near it (), op-ed used as a ref (), news reports on other reports used to artificially inflate ref count ( reports on , reports on ), usage of opinions from fringe theorists ( from a 9/11 truther) and using WikiLeaks ref to cite an unreliable website ( originally from ). The remaining well-sourced content can added to Research and Analysis Wing article. —Gazoth (talk) 07:43, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

This is not a reason to delete the article. An article should be neutral and feel free to add/remove the content with the references you want to add or remove. I haven't mentioned non-reliable sources.  M A A Z   T A L K  21:51, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• Delete Obvious POVFORK. --RaviC (talk) 13:40, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
• Keep My formal !vote for this article is still 'keep' after a thoughtful consideration besides the above first 'Comment' in this discussion by me. If there is room for articles on Pakistani intelligence agencies (Pakistan's ISI etc.) on Wikipedia, then we all know Wikipedia's policy is all about 'striking balance' and being fair. That's exactly why I attempted to improve the article when I first saw it nominated for deletion on 24 February 2018. I still hope and ask that people who wish to 'keep' it as an article, are given a chance to improve it further. Ngrewal1 (talk) 18:16, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Ngrewal1 Please let's set the records straight if we are going there (not that it matters). I looked at the history of the page and this not the first time you have de-prodded the article. The article was also proposed for deletion (by GeneralizationsAreBad) on 11 July 2017 a day after it was created. You removed this on 16 July 2017() and inserted a few Pakistan newspaper sources. It's been more than 8 months now and only more POV content was added to it prompting me to propose it (after I came across it) for deletion again. This was again removed by you by adding a few more Pakistan newspaper sources. Also, on your second comment, WP:GNG is not inherited or associative per WP:OTHERCONTENT and this was even said by Ma'az (user maing the same point below) on a AFD sometime ago (). I wonder why does that argument change now. Adamgerber80 (talk) 23:04, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Our main argument is, because the article is notable and passes WP:GNG, its notability is proved. You are misinterpretting by bringing in WP:OSE. Look if a person says that article Canada should be created because article USA exists, it doesn't mean that main point for article Canada is WP:OSE. Main point is WP:GNG, and after that we are calling for consistency. And you mentioned WP:OTHERCONTENT, it reads "While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument".And about my famous AFD :) (as it was featured by media) :) i think even you know that you are trying to confuse one thing with another. That article was on a biography which is a different discussion.  M A A Z   T A L K  20:14, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I would recommend you to go back and read your argument once again since it seems very incoherent to me. You go from WP:GNG to consistency to explaining how connecting this to WP:OTHERCONTENT is per policy. But you forget to mention that WP:OTHERCONTENT also states that is comparison can only be made "with Featured article, Good article, or have achieved a WikiProject A class rating" and should be "compliant with core policies such as neutral point of view and no original research". This article is definitely not NPOV as pointed by multiple editors and quite a few of the references itself are questionable as pointed by others and what WP:RSN has told you about Wikileaks. Second, the point on WP:GNG, you are mis-associating the WP:GNG of R&AW with the topic of this article. WP:OTHERCONTENT argument is valid in all subject discussions, unless you don't want to see it or are ignoring it. Lastly what you mean by our main argument. You are here to make your personal argument, not represent others. Adamgerber80 (talk) 20:46, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Nothing inconsistent, I just said that WP:OSE is valid under WP:GNG, just like an article about Canada is valid if USA exists. And to WP:NPOV, look we all know that in political issues(especially bipartisan issues) on Wikipedia, its almost impossible that the article would be 100% neutral (that's why there are edit conflicts on political issues almost everyday), as a reliable source from one country might be opposite to a reliable source of another (that's why the article mentions mostly foreign sources and google books), so its not that non-neutral. And I don't get why you cannot edit the article just like User:FloridaArmy did here and User:Adamgerber80 did here, Nobody challenged their edit. You can also edit the article and can also use WP:ATD. And about WikiLeaks, the RSN agreed that a WikiLeaks source can be mentioned with another RS(good context), in the article, Reference 11 (WikiLeaks source) is mentioned with reference 10 & reference 19 with 21.  M A A Z   T A L K  01:55, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Just because a a few foreign media/Wikileaks mentions that "according to Pakistani officials or Pakistani newspapers" does not make it neutral. It is still POV since they are directly quoting Pakistan here. Here is one in non-Pakistani media which is the interview of a Pakistani minister, another mentions that "Pakistan has complained", yet another states that "Pakistan officials accuse", another says "blamed by Pakistani authorities". And these are not Pakistan newspapers but foreign media sources you have used. I am sorry if you cannot see the POV which multiple other editors can. Also, by your comments that not all article are neutrals are betrays that even you think that the article is not truly NPOV. FloridaArmy My comment might answer some of your questions. Adamgerber80 (talk) 02:21, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. Yes, good point by User:Ngrewal1. If similar pages like ISI activities in India can survive, then what's wrong with this page? Inconsistent criteria is a sign of a failed argument. Wikipedia is not inconsistent.  M A A Z   T A L K  21:59, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:OSE for a non-notable POV fork? It's a bad argument. — MapSGV (talk) 00:16, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:OSE is not absolutely invalid criteria. It can be valid and in this case, the article is as notable as its equivalent; Wikipedia should be consistent. Consistency is the hall-mark of any reasoned discussion.  M A A Z   T A L K  09:33, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• Weak Delete - In my opinion, the current version of the article fails WP:NPOV, a core policy. The subject is notable and is briefly covered in the main article, this fork could be useful, but after a weak at AfD, the lede sentense and background sections are still, I feel, strongly POV. Smmurphy^(Talk) 23:05, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

To the WP:NPOV argument, i would say that, this can be improved via WP:ATD. Wikipedia always say, that if an article could be saved from deletion by an alternative, the alternative shud be used.  M A A Z   T A L K  09:33, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Tagging for NPOV is not a permanent solution. Given this is a fork, it isn't clear why it should be mantained in its current state given our readers might be better served by the operations and controversies section in the base article. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:22, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Deleting articles is also not a solution especially those that are notable. Multiple reliable sources mentioned.  M A A Z   T A L K  20:24, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• Delete this is not an article about RAW (The Indian intelligence services) activities in Pakistan. It is an article about accusations against RAW by Pakistani officials. It is a clear POV fork. I don't see how it is redeemable. The subject is best covered in the main article. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:02, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I think RAW's activity in relation to TTP, Balochistan, CPEC, ISI is quite significant and well established by many sources(including foreign). However, in political and especially bipartisan issues, one can always raise this point, that its all accusations. A source saying Pakistani officials have shared a video, doesn't mean that its accusation, it means its a proof of RAW activity. Webster Tarpley, James Dobbins, Praveen Swami, and many other authors, all these are quite significant mentions.  M A A Z   T A L K  01:50, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Which Indian sources have you cited? How about non-Pakistani sources? FloridaArmy (talk) 02:12, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

• Comment For users arguing for merge into the main article, they still need to explain how it would be feasible taking into account content size per WP:SPLITTING. It would be impossible to merge and expand such large amount of content, unless you want the RAW article to mostly be about Pakistan. Mar4d (talk) 05:43, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Also, far too many users voting on this AfD seem to be involved. Would be good to get neutral views. Mar4d (talk) 05:53, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

This is not true. An attempt to generally discount those editors who have not agrred with Mar4d's views. AshLin (talk) 16:53, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

• Delete. POV fork. Also WP:Undue. AshLin (talk) 16:53, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

No explanation of how it is either, another disposable !vote for the sake of !voting. Mar4d (talk) 03:23, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Which is one of Mar4d's standard attacks pn the vote of an Indian voter. :) AshLin (talk) 05:34, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Where have I attacked anyone? I have just stated my observation on the lack of clarification with regards to many of these votes. Mar4d (talk) 06:24, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I would lean keep and want a improved article. I agree with User:Elekricity. There is definitely an Indian WP:CABAL who is flooding the nom with 'Speedy delete' and 'delete' votes. Can you tell me why 'speedy delete'? They're only trying to influence the result. I suggest the closing admin to through check the rationale and even discount Pakistani and Indian votes. There are two or three Pakistani users who voted 'keep' but dozens of Indian users who are actually cabal try to influence every discussion: be it Kashmir, Rape in India or Violence in India against Muslims. I think this discussion need more neutral votes from western perspective. It is similar in nature to article, ISI activities in India or other place. Please don't be bias and work to improve WP. There are less Pakistani users so don't take advantage from it. Thanks. 119.160.116.141 (talk) 18:54, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
• Keep - There are plenty of book sources. Whatever the current article quality, it doesn't merit deletion. Now that the article is in the limelight it could be brought to Wikipedia quality and policy standards. For example:

1. "There are also some indications that the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), the Indian intelligence agency, may be involved in fomenting terrorism, sectarian and otherwise, in different parts of Pakistan, particularly in Karachi and Balochistan."

2. "On January 29, 1999, an Indian saboteur, Subhash Chander, was apprehended by the security agencies of Pakistan for carrying out bomb blasts in Sialkot. The then Prime Minister of Pakistan, Nawaz Sharif, brought this Indian activity to the notice of the US Deputy Secretary of State, Strobe Talbot, who was on a visit to Pakistan."

3. "RAW reports to the Prime Minister and is reportedly involved in disinformation campaigns, espionage and sabotage against Pakistan and other countries. Throughout the Soviet/Afghan War the RAW was responsible for the planning and execution of terrorist activities in Pakistan to deter Pakistan from support of Afghan liberation movement against India's ally, the Soviet Union." --39.48.42.250 (talk) 07:06, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Mentioning these sources in the article.  M A A Z   T A L K  10:08, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Not a reliable tertiary source. No authors listed. Not a repued publisher. Lacks even a website. AshLin (talk) 14:00, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Authors are mentioned and the sources are reliable. I think there is high skepticism going on over sources. Its like you are finding reasons to somehow belittle an authentic source.  M A A Z   T A L K  19:22, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

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.