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 keep. a snow keep. There is no way a consensus would form to delete the article given the coverage in WP:RS, and the significance of the events surrounding the subject of the article. Kindly see the reasoning put forward by "keep" commenters, and understand it. Further reading: this AfD. —usernamekiran(talk) 20:03, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jammu and Kashmir (union territory) (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)

Jammu and Kashmir is not yet a union territory of India. India has not yet officially or formally annexed Jammu and Kashmir yet. IMHO, this page should not even exist yet in the main namespace. Saqib (talk) 07:35, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Wikipedia has covered proposed territories when they have significant coverage in secondary sources (see Category:Proposed states and territories of Brazil, Category:Proposed states and territories of Australia, Category:Proposed states and territories of India for examples). In this case, the bill to bring the union territory into effect has been passed in both houses of the Parliament and only awaits the President's assent. India never 'annexed' the territory, but a major part of it is under the country's control for the past 71 years, so any decision the country takes is notable, and will have effect. DeluxeVegan (talk) 07:49, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

& What if the legality of this move could be questioned in the Supreme Court of India and Supreme Court strike it down? --Saqib (talk) 08:12, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Even then, the union territory will have existed for a period of time. That would result in even more coverage of the topic. FYI, my argument was based on the coverage this proposed territory received in secondary sources, and not the question of its legality. DeluxeVegan (talk) 08:17, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 08:07, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 08:07, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Wait the centralized discussion at the India project noticeboard --Sharouser (talk) 08:11, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Given the majority with which the Bill was passed in both Houses of the Parliament, the reality of the reorganisation seems more evident than being bleak and a distant myth. -- Tamravidhir (talk!) 09:38, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: It's a certainty that the UT will be created, whether anyone likes it or not. TryKid (talk) 13:15, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: It's a well-researched article, and even if the territory were to be voted down (which doesn't seem to be the case), I think you could change "is" to "was" in the first sentence and still have a deserving article. —Ubiquity (talk • contribs) 18:01, 7 August 2019 (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.