Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indian military fiction

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 of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 13:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Indian military fiction

Listcruft, random listing of war fiction. Page was PROD tagged, but PROD was removed by the author with the statement: it happens these are the only books known to be written by Indians on military fiction. Hence the need to keep the page. That claim is just not tenable. ImpuMozhi 01:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per above. ImpuMozhi 01:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I see no evidence that this is either a prevalent or notable phenomenon AdamBiswanger1 02:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, indiscriminate list. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 02:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Please allow for organic expansion. -- Librarianofages 02:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Organic is a synonym for perpetual in this context -listcruft, I say. SM247^{My Talk} 03:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• MERGE with Indian Armed Forces under heading "In fiction" or "In population culture" —Pengo 09:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Pengo. JChap 19:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The article has only just started. The premise is sound, and could be a decent article if given time to grow. Unless there is an obvious reason to delete an article there should be a period allowed for them to develop. An article exploring the history and development of Indian military fiction sounds like a good academic subject. Rather than delete, let's encourage the author and give him the means to expand his article. SilkTork 22:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

  Comment: An essay detailing the trend of "military fiction by writers who are Indian by nationality" sounds nice, even if one anticipates subjectivity problems. I would support the effort. But the article clearly does not envisage any such structuring. The author's assertion that these are the only works of military fiction ever written by Indians, and hence the article should be retained, does not support the assessment that informs the last sentence of this well-meaning vote. ImpuMozhi 23:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. WP:AGF -- Alias Flood 23:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

  Please believe me, there can be no question of not assuming good faith; see my comment above. ImpuMozhi 23:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete; Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. If any of these works are notable, they should get their own articles, and then they can be unified with an appropriately-named category. --MCB 06:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

  Comment - While an item by itself may not be notable or interesting enough for an article, when grouped together with similiar items it becomes of interest. An article on one ordinary person from Portugal wouldn't be interesting, while an article on the people of Portugal would. Interestingly while just doing a quick search for Airavat Singh, one of the authors mentioned in the article, I discovered that he is used as a reference source for the Kamboja Dynasty of Bengal article - so he does have some credibility. Also, I am tempted to be more patient to under-represented areas on Wikipedia. The majority of Wikipedians are young American males with an interest in comics, films and music - as such we are swamped with such articles, and it is right that we examine each new comic article carefully. However, articles on Indian literature are very rare and should not, I think, be hastily deleted. This article, as it stands, does no disservice to Wikipedia, and - given time (bear in mind that it was nominated for destru ction something like 9 days after first being written) - it may blossom into something that we all can be very proud of. SilkTork 08:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

  Why, the other two authors are also eminent personalities, I don't doubt that their books are good. That's not the point. What is the sanctity of a listing of military fiction, where the only point is that the authors belong to a certain nationality? I can see that you have an interest in military fiction; will you take up the task of moulding the article into something worthwhile, on the lines indicated by you above? Otherwise, saying that the article should be retained on the vague off-chance of future improvement, when the creator of the piece states definitely that no such thing is on the anvil, make no sense to me. Anyway, it matters little in the great scheme of things. ImpuMozhi 16:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - It seems an interesting topic to merit an article (maybe a category per MCB. But till all such books have their own article and a category, this article should remain). Hopefully, We may see an addition by other editors after the article getting attention in this forum - Lost 12:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I feel this topic has the potential to grow into an interesting article, give some time for it. I am doing a minor research to cull out some more details on this topic. I would suggest that this article be given some time before taking a decision on its deletion. Jordy 16:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Some of the authors and books may be notable, or maybe the information could be included in an article on "military fiction" or made into a category instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Denaar (talk • contribs)
• Keep and tag for cleanup/wikification. The attitudes of the Indian writers (and their reading public) regarding fantasies of war with Pakistan are are interest and notability. Herostratus 20:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - a difficult one this. I can readilly see the potential for a worthwhile article. What swings it for me, though, is that of the 5 works mentioned, one is by the author with a link to his own website. This seems, to me, and I readilly admit that I might be wrong, to be a loosely cloaked advert for his own views. I think it should be deleted, userfied and the author encouraged to develop it in his sandbox and come back later with an improved product. BlueValour 03:10, 8 July 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.