Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indira gandhi's 20 point program

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. alphaChimp^(talk) 06:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Indira gandhi's 20 point program

Although an important political set of facts, this article is entirely copyvio and a personal narrative. Looking for more opinions on what should be done. As of now, I favor deletion. Rama's arrow 01:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as copyvio, although I can see a summary being salvaged and merged into Ghandi's entry. Akradecki 02:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete "Copy/Paste". No further explanations. ResurgamII 02:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete— Merge or Keep if & only if it undergoes a major rewrite - The topic meets WP:N; a position by a major political figure is noteworthy. But it is almost assuredly a copyright violation unless released by the author or the Government of India, so needs to be summarized in an academic fashion. Attempted to rewrite it to salvage it but could NOT find independent material and was unable to confirm to my satisfaction that it is the work of Indira Ghandi. Does not meet WP:V. - Williamborg (Bill) 02:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I've nominated a similar article Innovation formulae by the same author for deletion as well. After I decided I disliked one of them it wasn't hard to conclude they all were similar. Williamborg (Bill) 03:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. May or may not be copyvio, and what I read does not at all sound like the work of any government. Reads like original research, and there were only five listed points in the version I read. - Smerdis of Tlön 04:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Moncrief 07:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Copyvio, OR, unencyclopedic, POV. About the only thing going for it is the fact that the subject matter would probably be worth an article --Aim Here 12:44, 4 September 2006 (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.