Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sino-Indian Standoff 2013

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. L Faraone 04:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sino-Indian Standoff 2013[edit]

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

Little context, no references or coverage, current context doesn't even signify a "standoff" Revolution1221 ^{(talk · email · contributions)} 22:34, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:02, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:02, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:02, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the use of "standoff": India-China standoff: Army Chief briefs PM, other senior ministers. Keahapana (talk) 00:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable occurrence, no references, no change from how Sino-Indian posturing has been taking place over the last how many years now? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Trivially easy to demonstrate GNG. FT The Ozzie and Indian newspapers all show up on the first page of google. Sheesh, try harder. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And how does this avoid falling under WP:NOTNEWSPAPER? Sheesh! --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:45, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per The Bushranger. Barely worth a line in China–India relations. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Is 2013 Daulat Beg Oldi Incident referring to the same thing? I think it might be. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly appears so! Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Sven DLinth (talk) 18:00, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS. LibStar (talk) 02:25, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per The Bushranger. Anotherclown (talk) 11:26, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sino-Indian border dispute. The event was given significant coverage by multiple reliable sources, that being said, I am unaware that the event which was the standoff has received continued coverage from reliable sources. Therefore, the subject falls within the scope of the Sino-Indian border dispute or the China–India relations articles. As such a merger of verified content can be moved to one of those two articles, and a redirect left in this article's space.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:47, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the Defense Industry Daily has provided us these sources to evaluate notability of the event. These sources can arguably be seen as continued coverage, even thogh the event still falls within the scope of the article Sino-Indian border dispute.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:03, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sino-Indian border dispute per RightCowLeftCoast. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 10:48, 9 May 2013 (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.