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. Michig (talk) 07:26, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of records of India[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Indiscriminate list. It's in poor condition right now, and can't decide if it wants Indian records or world records set by Indians, and it's also the target of a fairly inept sock, but the bigger problem here is that it is an invitation to just list everything that happens in the subcontinent for the first time, is the biggest, is the smallest, is the fastest, is the richest, whatever. In other words, the very term "record" is the problem. Drmies (talk) 00:50, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete Holy crap batman, what is this? The nomination is quite the understatement; this is a totally indiscriminate collection, and has a tinge of nationalistic POV to it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:59, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and a serious look at the other "records by country" pages linked in the navigation template. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:53, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Way too broad/indiscriminate to be an appropriate list. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:22, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:47, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:47, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not the place for excessive statistical lists. Seeing as nearly any "record" could be placed in this article, it is too broad to be included here. /wiae /tlk 15:48, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Quite the crufty list here. This is a clear of example of how Wikipedia is not a host of indiscriminate information. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:49, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Thomas.W ^talk 16:45, 24 February 2016 (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.