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


 * 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. Randykitty (talk) 09:16, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Controversies surrounding the Indian National Army
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

A WP:POVFORK of Indian National Army at best.

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


 * Delete per nominators explanation. Lots of POV. Doesn’t warrant its own article.Nocturnal781 (talk) 23:43, 6 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep - The split from Indian National Army appears justified under WP:TOOLONG given the fact that that article is already quite long. The 2008 redirect decision clearly considered that the article could be BOLDly re-created. The article has been heavily edited since the 2008 discussion and is not the same article. FOARP (talk) 13:39, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and India. Shellwood (talk) 14:46, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per FOARP the split is justified on WP:TOOLONG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:24, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete The important content already exists at Indian National Army. 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. Captain Jack Sparrow (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.rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 09:54, 8 March 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:59, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Not only it fails WP:NOPAGE but a big problem is also with POV pushing. Shankargb (talk) 03:12, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - I don't see the need for a separate 'controversies' fork, considering that INA isn't particularily controversial. The article fails to outline any major controversies, apart from author-voice insinuations. --Soman (talk) 14:35, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete Already exists at Indian National Army. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 10:13, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. Notwithstanding the WP:POV issues in this article, I did some searching and found that there is already a place for this content at Indian National Army. Essentially, Wikipedia policy dictates that the topic doesn’t merit an article separate from what already exists. Shawn Teller (talk) 23:11, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:POVFORK. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 05:14, 21 March 2023 (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.