Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Time line: One Rank One Pension (OROP) 1973-2013

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. —SpacemanSpiff 02:10, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Time line: One Rank One Pension (OROP) 1973-2013 (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)

I don't think that the separation is required, the article section on Chronology can be merged with this. Anyways the entire merged article would be less than the max allowed limit. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 18:16, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 18:17, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 18:17, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- is the proposal to redirect / merge with One Rank One Pension Scheme? K.e.coffman (talk) 04:59, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I don't think delete makes sense, per WP:PRESERVE, and would prefer this article trimmed. If an encyclopedic tone can be maintained and the timeline's length remains significant, it seems like a valid fork of the OROP article. If it is trimmed enough, then perhaps put it back into that article (this article was split off last December, I think). Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:23, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I agree it may be best to abridge the article on 'OROP time line 1973 -2013' and put it back in the article on OROP from which it had been split. Thanks. Jnanaskanda^(Talk)
• Merge Delete back into One Rank One Pension in severely trimmed form. This is far too detailed and lacks compliance with WP:MOS but it has more than enough WP:RS citations to be notable, which is all that really matters here. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:11, 5 June 2017 (UTC) On further review, nearly every reliable source cited is duplicated from the parent article, which means that there aren't enough sources to sustain independent notability and all text that could be merged is basically there already. Nothing to save through merger. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:04, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. without merging. The detailed content in the main article is already excessive, unencyclopedic , and blatantly POV. Adding any of this would make it yet worse: all of the associated articles are a WP:Walled garden constituting a promotional effort for increased retirement pay for Indian military. Regardless of whether in equity they ought to be entitled to it, WP is not the place for advocacy of a cause. DGG ( talk ) 09:17, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I cant see anything of note in here that is not included in the One Rank, One Pension article. MilborneOne (talk) 17:41, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- trivial & would not improve a target article if any. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:25, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: merging the information here would simply overwhelm the main article with a level of detail that seems unwarranted. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:01, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.