Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Koshyari Committee Report On Grant Of One Rank One Pension


 * 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. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  02:43, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Koshyari Committee Report On Grant Of One Rank One Pension

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Essentially the same as One Rank One Pension -- same material, and both essentially advocacy at that. I think the first step is to reduce the number of articles. The context for the advocacy seemed very unclear, but I think it is about a plan to pay pensions to retired army officers at the same rates as police officers, with some added complications, including a claimed inequality for the few hundred army officers at the highest ranks  DGG ( talk ) 19:45, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  19:54, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  19:54, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  19:54, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:58, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete There's nothing worthwhile that this adds over the OROP article, which already has a section about the committee. This article relies too heavily on the original report, which is a primary source. Without secondary sources talking about the committee itself, this material belongs back at the OROP article. Because most of this article is either primary source re-statements or redundant information the most logical conclusion is deletion. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 02:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Not notable or needed for stand alone article. Covered in the OROP article as noted above. Really just a WP:CFORK. Kierzek (talk) 13:58, 23 June 2017 (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.