Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One Rank One Pension Scheme

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 redirect to One Rank, One Pension. I've taken AustralianRupert's suggestion in tandem with the comments of other editors while closing this discussion as a redirect. If any administrator wishes to delete the history of the redirect, they are free to do so. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 01:01, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One Rank One Pension Scheme

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

Essentially the same as One Rank One Pension -- same material, and both essentially advocacy at that. I think the first step is to reduce the number of articles. Possibly they should all be rolled into a section in Pay Commission and, possibly for the details Sixth Central Pay Commission . The context for the advocacy seemed very unclear, but I think it is about a plan to pay pensions to retired army officers at the same rates as police officers, with some added complications, including a claimed inequality for the few hundred army officers at the highest ranks. DGG ( talk ) 19:44, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:53, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:53, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:57, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- excessive as One Rank One Pension already exists. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:54, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:37, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: unnecessary as any relevant information should be covered in One Rank One Pension. I guess in theory this could be a redirect, too, though. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:07, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nomination, this seems to be a duplicate of an existing article. Anotherclown (talk) 05:34, 1 July 2017 (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.