Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/INS Sindhurakshak disaster


 * 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 speedy delete. The article had serious copyright violation issues. --  tariq abjotu  06:46, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

INS Sindhurakshak disaster

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a WP:FORK of INS Sindhurakshak (S63), which is copied word for word, without attribution, from that section. Several editors (myself included) have attempted to redirect the article to that section as a plausible search term, however the article creator has repeatedly reverted the redirecting, hence it being brought for deletion. This sort of article is not something done; the sinking of a naval vessel is, as a rule, covered in that vessel's article, not in a standalone article; it is WP:TOOSOON to determine if a WP:SPINOUT a la Russian submarine Kursk explosion is valid, and if it becomes valid it needs to be properly attributed instead of being WP:COPYVIO. The Bushranger One ping only 03:04, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete as per reasons given by The Bushranger. After deletion, it can be re-directed to INS Sindhurakshak (S63). Anir1uph &#124; talk &#124; contrib 03:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per nom; and support redirection to INS Sindhurakshak (S63). — Mel bourne Star ☆ talk 03:14, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military and combat-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:26, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:27, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:07, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete: There is no reason to split this off from the main article at all. This one incident is covered well enough within the article on the actual submarine. --  李博杰  &#124; —Talk contribs email 03:34, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per The Bushranger. Paris1127 (talk) 03:48, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete and recreate redirect to INS Sindhurakshak (S63) per above. Unfortunate that the author keeps undoing the redirect, as this should have been an easy one. Ansh666 04:16, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete and recreate redirect, per above. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 05:22, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Represents major disaster in India, and major disaster in Indian Navy history, with 18 casualties. Current event so the content would change as the news comes in.--Samuelled (talk) 05:37, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * And why does it need to be in a standalone article, instead of in the ship's article? - The Bushranger One ping only 05:54, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Mayhaps due to national pride? Just kidding... anyhow, I wouldn't be surprised that someone would think of it that way. And unless the whole country of the Indian Republic was affected (to any extent possibly imaginable) and mobs (government or private capacity) were mobilised to partake in the rescue/recovery process (both of which, incidentally, runs smack into WP:NOTNEWS), I don't see any good reason why this incident deserves a space on Wikipedia's server. -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 06:41, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * DELETE: Per rationale provided by moi and complementing those of TBR. -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 06:41, 15 August 2013 (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.