Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of serving Generals of the Indian Army

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 keep. Being incomplete isn't really a valid reason for deletion and as most of these are incomplete.... By your logic every single related list here should be deleted ... which won't ever happen, Anyway consensus is to keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:15, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of serving Generals of the Indian Army

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

The list is not always clear, roughly Indian Army will have one 4-star General, about 200 3-star Generals i.e Lt Generals and about 600 2-star Generals i.e Major Generals serve in the army at a particular time. So - List of serving Generals of Indian Army - must include about 800 officers and details of their positions. So the present list doesn't show the complete date not even 25 % of the original and expansion to that level may be highly impossible. KCVelaga _{☚╣✉╠☛} 11:26, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:01, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:01, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:01, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - not a valid reason for deletion. We have numerous incomplete generals' lists (like Australia and the UK) and we just need to let people have time to work on it. Other articles, eg List of infantry divisions of the Soviet Union 1917-57 have also been incomplete for some time until filled in. Having some of the information available is useful!! Buckshot06 (talk) 19:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sure, it could be better, but I frankly don't see its incompleteness alone as warranting its deletion. GAB^Hello! 20:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - let's don't demolish the house while it's still being built! Vipinhari || talk 20:08, 9 April 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.