Talk:Programs renamed by Modi Government

Most of the claims in the article are very poorly sourced - that is, the source is unreliable or does not support the claim at all. Why should these claims not be removed until reliable sources could be found to back those claims? Diffeomorphicvoodoo (talk) 07:02, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Programs renamed by Modi Government or Programs *allegedly* renamed by Modi Government

Is this article supposed to list allegations (including by politicians from opposition parties) or just verifiable claims of programs being renamed from reliable sources? This is an important difference because, for instance, an opinion piece by P. Chidambaram can not be considered a reliable source for the claim that Basic Savings Bank Account program has been renamed to Jan Dhan Yojana, but it is a reliable source for the claim that it has been alleged that it is. Diffeomorphicvoodoo (talk) 07:23, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

There are no allegations here. If any allegation like language surfaces , it may be delted and article tagged. ChunnuBhai (talk) 08:01, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

You haven't understood my question. I am not saying that this article is making any allegations. Diffeomorphicvoodoo (talk) 08:14, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Please stop reverting edits without discussion on the talk page

The entries from the article were removed with good reason. The sources provided do not support the claim being made in the article for most entries currently in the article. Removing unverifiable claims is not overzealous deletion WP:ZEAL. The entries can be added again as sources are found for them. I have already started this process and added an entry with a source in an edit. Reverting to older edits is just undoing all this work. Diffeomorphicvoodoo (talk) 07:45, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

This is a new article, 3 days old as of now, and author may need time to add reliable sources. the wikipedia community can pitch in too. However, if most of the entries are deleted, the wikipedia community may not be able to pitch in. Its one thing to delete blatantly false information, and completely another to delete potentially true information just for the want of WP:RS/. in the latter case, "citation needed" tag may be placed instead of deleting some material altogether. ChunnuBhai (talk) 07:56, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

This page falls in the borderline category of WP:HOAX and WP:ATTACK and with the influx of new editors, It is clear that this page is mentioned in some kind of forum or talk board. Please get consensus here on this talk page before reverting any more edits. Razer^{Text me} 08:00, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Razer2115, you have been deleting and reverting the edits too. Please desist from deleting material from a new wikipedia article. Wikipedia allows new authors the courtesy to have time to add reliable links to support the article. Lets us not pounce upon a new article. I disagree that this is WP:HOAX or WP:ATTACK. renaming schemes happen all the time, it is never a hoax. whether or not a separate page is warranted, is being discussed on AFD page. any propaganda material may be removed as per wiki. ChunnuBhai (talk) 08:06, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

You have again reverted the article, despite the ongoing discussion on the talk page. This is you third revert on this article. This is simply not acceptable. Diffeomorphicvoodoo (talk) 08:13, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

How do we know whether a claim is "potentially true information" in the absence of verifiable sources? I went through the sources mentioned in the article and for more than half of the entries, the source does not support the claim being made at all. Why should potentially false claims be retained on a wikipedia page, especially one that is generating a lot of pageviews? Diffeomorphicvoodoo (talk) 08:13, 14 June 2017 (UTC)