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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greater pakistan

[edit]

A content fork from Pakistan and Kashmir, consisting solely of one editor's view what of Pakistan's boundaries should be if the Kashmir dispute was resolved in its favour. The dispute is adequately covered in the Kashmir article, and disagreement over its wording should be resolved there by consensus, instead of by creating a rival article. Per the Content Fork policy the article was converted into a redirect, but this was reversed by its creator so I've brought it here for a wider set of eyes. Euryalus (talk) 09:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 11:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nja²⁴⁷ 19:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons given by nominator as well as WP:OR and WP:SOAPBOX. The author would have England claim all English-speaking regions as part of Greater England, or have the Vatican City claim all Catholic-majority countries as part of Greater Vatican City. Drawn Some (talk) 20:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: as original research. --Ragib (talk) 17:38, 4 May 2009 (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.