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 redirected for now seems best. The full article remains available in history but in its present state this is superfluous. Suggest use of ((under construction)) when resurrected to avoid further crossed wires. Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 21:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies surrounding the Indian National Army[edit]

Article is an exact copy of Indian National Army's controversy section. Since the original article is quite good and does not require to be broken in subpages this article can be deleted. gppande «talk» 12:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - article is a word-for-word cut and paste from Indian National Army, no reason for a separate article on this. Striking vote, see comment below. Gatoclass (talk) 15:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've just boldly redirected it. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 14:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably shouldn't have been AFD'ed anyhow, since it looks as though the creator intends to create a sub-article to shorten the Indian National Army article. Gatoclass (talk) 15:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Excuse me, but could somebody please show some courtesy and notify the creator of the article when nominating for AfD??? If you see the Talk page, I have explained I intend to shrink the parent article, hence it is not going to remain a "cut and paste" for eternity, but will be significantly improved!!! But I am insanely busy for another three or four days. The parent article is quite long, and summary style would mean that every lengthy section would need to be condensed. This was the same as what was done for a preceding section on INA's operations. If you do not have any constructive contributions to make, please do not disrupt others efforts to improve articles. I have undirected Alexius' redirection. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 16:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think someone should close this AFD now. Gatoclass (talk) 16:44, 9 June 2008 (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.