Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controversies surrounding the Indian National Army (2nd nomination): Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit
Line 17: Line 17:
*'''Keep''' per [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] the split is justified on [[WP:TOOLONG]].[[User:Pharaoh of the Wizards|Pharaoh of the Wizards]] ([[User talk:Pharaoh of the Wizards|talk]]) 10:24, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' per [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] the split is justified on [[WP:TOOLONG]].[[User:Pharaoh of the Wizards|Pharaoh of the Wizards]] ([[User talk:Pharaoh of the Wizards|talk]]) 10:24, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' The important content already exists at [[Indian National Army#Controversies]]. This page is a POV cruft and fails [[WP:NOPAGE]]. Further, [[WP:TOOLONG]] does not take a strong stand in this case (less than 60,000 characters of reading material). Dont think it can overrule the NPOV concerns. [[User:CapnJackSp|Captain Jack Sparrow]] ([[User talk:CapnJackSp|talk]]) 18:34, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' The important content already exists at [[Indian National Army#Controversies]]. This page is a POV cruft and fails [[WP:NOPAGE]]. Further, [[WP:TOOLONG]] does not take a strong stand in this case (less than 60,000 characters of reading material). Dont think it can overrule the NPOV concerns. [[User:CapnJackSp|Captain Jack Sparrow]] ([[User talk:CapnJackSp|talk]]) 18:34, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Thankyou to both sides contributing to the argument for "keep" and for "delete". I originally created this article necessarily because I felt the parent section in the article "Indian National Army" was getting too long (ie the WP:TOOLONG). I am not going to argue for against the deletion, but this I think needed to be highlighted. If the forum decides this is not the case any longer, then the article I am sure does not meet the criteria for independent articleship. Quick note (I say this without any sense of being upset), if you want to build something collaborative, throwing allegations of NPOV will neither help you build consensus nor collaboration, and wont help you get your point accross. I've been in WP long enough to see that. Good luck, and thanks again to both sides for their efforts.[[User:rueben_lys|rueben_lys]] ([[User talk:rueben_lys|talk]] <b>·</b> [[Special:Contribs/rueben_lys|contribs]]) 09:54, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Revision as of 09:54, 8 March 2023

Controversies surrounding the Indian National Army (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A WP:POVFORK of Indian National Army at best.

Earlier AfD concluded that the article should be redirected, per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Controversies_surrounding_the_Indian_National_Army. However, it was restored without any discussion. Editorkamran (talk) 13:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou to both sides contributing to the argument for "keep" and for "delete". I originally created this article necessarily because I felt the parent section in the article "Indian National Army" was getting too long (ie the WP:TOOLONG). I am not going to argue for against the deletion, but this I think needed to be highlighted. If the forum decides this is not the case any longer, then the article I am sure does not meet the criteria for independent articleship. Quick note (I say this without any sense of being upset), if you want to build something collaborative, throwing allegations of NPOV will neither help you build consensus nor collaboration, and wont help you get your point accross. I've been in WP long enough to see that. Good luck, and thanks again to both sides for their efforts.rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 09:54, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]