Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Programs renamed by Modi Government

Programs renamed by Modi Government

Programs renamed by Modi Government (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE, We already have List of government schemes in India. Razer^{Text me} 04:59, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:17, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Merge. There is public interest to learn about this. I suggest we merge this into List of government schemes in India subins2000 (talk) 15:04, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

DeleteBy and large all government policies are based on similar principles of social justice and empowerment, however this does not mean all policies can be rolled into one and called copies of each other. Most of the mentioned sources do not in any way substantiate the claims of rename as alleged by the page. E.g. the Basic Savings Bank Deposit Account differs significantly from the Jan Dhan Yojna in terms of its execution parameters. VIz. The former was largely an advisory issued for PSUs wheras the latter firstly extends to the Pvt Sector as well and contains well defined targets and timelines. 2) Ultimately even though the former was in action since 2005, there was no action on the grounnd and no tracking mechanism to count the number of Accounts created. Till date there is no reliable citation to ascribe the accounts created under this scheme. There are such differences across multiple dimensions on several such schemes as claimed t be renamed. Hence there really is no reasons for this kind of work to exist on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amathur2k (talk • contribs) 13:17, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Keep. The article mentioned by proposer User:Razer2115 doesn't capture the act of renaming by the current government. The number of Pageviews to the article shows that there is public interest to learn about this. Chirag (talk) 05:38, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Agreed This page captures important information and it should not be deleted. Though it can be expanded to capture name changes by other governments ago. Maybe it should be name as "Government Programs renamed by Indian Government" -- Hargup (talk) 05:46, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

The notability of the subject of the article must be established in accordance to wikipedia's guidelines. As of now there are only a few independent sources given to support the claim of notability. Note that according to WP:GNG, "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." Four out of five articles cited to establish notability of the article are by the same author. Diffeomorphicvoodoo (talk) 18:52, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Keep. This page specifically talks about program changes by the current Modi government. This is unique, not covered by any other page and the title of the page itself suggests that it is limited to changes by this Modi government only and not by others. For other govts, some other page can be created by others. As explained by Chirag there are enough pageviews to show that there is genuine public interest served by this page. This page must stay. hardthinker 06:23, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Keep. This page should stay up. It keeps people informed. This page must stay. KeralaBlaster 11:46, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Keep. This page should stay. There is absoultely no reason for it to be deleted. All arguements against keeping the page seems to be highly illogical. What does it mean when someone says it's not just renaming but a lot of other things too. While I really don't agree, isn't name change also a part of it? And how does it change when we call a spade a spade?

Remove. I don't quite see the purpose of this article. Although unstated, the implication is that changing the name is the only thing that has been done to these programs, which is incorrect for most programs listed on the page. Further, many of the sources listed are either not reliable (opinion pieces) or do not support the claim that the program was simply renamed. If there has been significant revamping of the program, I don't think it makes sense to say that a program has been "renamed" just because an old one was replaced with a new one having similar goals. Diffeomorphicvoodoo (talk) 06:00, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

• Delete or merge. This is another political propaganda page as can be seen from it's biased introduction and the title. It violates the general naming convention of a Wikipedia article (list) . What is this "Modi government?" WP:NOTNEWS - "Modi government" is an unofficial word used by *national* media outlets in India to Direct BJP government. The right reason for a deletion is WP:CFORK, a name change is not credible enough to have a separate article (list) on it. Mention of the name change in the parent article (list) does the work. FWIW, the above keep !vote gives an argument which we generally avoid on Wikipedia, *keep the article because it has views*. Jim Carter 06:24, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

In addition to what I said, the sources mentioned below are not actually sources but tabloids and opinionated press release which does not merit WP:RS. It is okay to have it mentioned in a section called "controversy" but it is not okay to have a standalone article per WP:UNDUE, WP:POV, WP:CFORK. "Sonia-says-in-Maharashtra", "says-congress" in the given sources are enough to understand. Jim Carter 07:02, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Comment I see quite a few PIB links being quoted. This is a new article, and some time must be given to the author to come up with proper links. In my simple understanding, reliable sources can be added in due course of time. But deleting a new unreviewed article without giving time to add proper sources would be WP:ZEALChunnuBhai (talk) 07:14, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Comment If "Modi government" violates naming conventions of wikipedia, wikipedia community may consider renaming the article to "Schemes renamed by Modi ministry". However, a bad title cannot be an argument for deletion. Remedy to a bad title on wikipedia is a better title, not deletion. If the article is a propaganda, then propaganda material be removed and the article appropriately tagged.ChunnuBhai (talk) 06:59, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

• : "Modi government?" doesn't exist but Modi ministry does. Seruapain 07:00, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

his article is part of political propaganda that seems to downgrade working of present government. although it is the fact that new scheme by Modi governmet subsumed the older scheme, but to claim that they were only renamed is far from truth. Just to give one example Jan Dhan yojana went far beyond the mandate of Basic Saving bank deposit of previous government. It actually forced banks to open no-frill accounts and link them to Aadhar card. Also in terms of success two could not be compared. And it should be kept in mind that it has always been policy of Indian government to subsume all the related schemes in the new ones, and this could not be termed as mere renaming. The title of page is defamatory and misleading. The linked provided as reference also does not claim renaming.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 06:48, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Keep The list is unique and the contention that Central Govt led by Narendra Modi has been renaming and repackaging schemes has been covered in the Indian media on and off. for example etc. In fact renaming old schemes was an election agenda in 2014 and a part of election speeches. . In case the article veers towards a biased propaganda like language, it should be edited and propaganda material removed. ChunnuBhai (talk) 06:49, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

References

comment votes have been deleted on this page. Admin please note. The article has a listing of facts. With citations.

Keep. This is a useful list that accurately represents the policy debate in India. That several schemes have been renamed has been pointed out by several commentators and economists. Do note that there is a significant difference between stating facts in a neutral tone and political propaganda. One of the Remove comment above indicates that this is downgrading the work of the present government. Such language itself is an indication of bias, and is not rooted in facts. Where schemes have been renamed with changes, such changes can be presented in a separate column. However, this list itself is an important compilation of information and falls under a larger set of renamed institutions, towns and infrastructure projects in India. Multitrackdrifting (talk) 07:05, 14 June 2017 (UTC)— Multitrackdrifting (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep per WP:STAND. Schemes of Modi ministry have been the subject of controversies and are widely debated in India such as 2016 Indian banknote demonetisation. Huge sources from independent outlets are available to verify these listed schemes in the article. I do not see how these can exist elsewhere or can be merged with an existing article. Given the notability surrounding such several schemes[1][2] the list should be kept. Seruapain 07:15, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

• Comment The controversies are not just made by Indian National Congress but from other political parties of India as well such as Shiv Sena[3]. Seruapain 07:26, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

• Keep. It needs to be documented. All the references were given properly and it qualifies as a list type. --Surya Prakash.S.A. (talk) 09:30, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
• Keep; this appears to be a reasonable topic for a list, especially given the current or recent furore on the subject. Of course, the current list looks rather bad; I'd be open to supporting a TNT delete for this specific page on the subject. Nyttend (talk) 11:05, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:11, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: I have no particular interest in this debate. But I want to note here that the people who are asking to keep this page, should seriously put some effort in fixing the article, if they think that its worthy of existence. The article in its current state contains a lot of WP:OR. As I have said here in the edit summary, the sources should clearly state that the new programme is synonymous to the older programme. As for the article's WP:GNG, there have to be some considerable number of reliable, secondary and independent sources that say in their own voice (not in opposition's voice, because any opposition is not a secondary & independent source) that, 'Programs renamed by Modi Government/Ministry' is a notable issue or subject. There are currently no such sources present in the article, and this is a big problem. To those who want to keep this article, you must work on finding such sources. Or else, no responsible editor who has been here for a while, accepts that this article can continue to exist, no matter how many people out there are interested in this subject. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. We are just a boring encyclopedia who completely rely on quality sources and our policies & guidelines like WP:NPOV, WP:V etc. Also, given that this article is being used for publicity on online forums (TBH, I came to know about this article from that Facebook page itself), it would be a gross violation of Wikipedia's principles to keep this article just because there are a number of keep votes. Best regards, Tyler Durden (talk) 15:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Just adding to the above point here. I agree that there must be more independent sources that show the notability of the subject for this article to stay. It seems that some sources have been added to the article to this effect, but, as of now, three out of the four articles presented in the lead to show notability are written by the same person. Two of them are actually just the same exact article reproduced on two different websites.

I added around half a dozen new citations. The point about independent voices is well taken. The new citations should take carr of it. Given more time, I'm sure more editors will contribute to increase the number of entries and also enrich the article. Chirag (talk) 17:58, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Comment: Bad faith creation. S. No. 9 in the list 'Neem Coated Urea' is a type of fertiliser. There has never been/never will exist a program or scheme by that name. What the author has done is equate the 'Growth Claims' by the current Indian Government to the name of a fertiliser, essentially calling it shit. A clarification was sought on the author talk page, no response yet. 49.207.55.113 (talk) 16:36, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

That's a rather harsh judgement for not responding to your comment. There was an edit war happening (the page was unprotected then) and I didn't wan't to get into it. I don't do this for a living, so I can't respond to all comments as soon as they are posted. Coming to the matter of bad faith. Considering the speed and frequency with which the article was being blanked by anonymous/newly created articles, I can easily imagine that there is an organised campaign to suppress this page. So, editors/admins should consider the bad faith aspect of some of the editors requesting deletion of the article. Chirag (talk) 17:58, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Nonsense. The article was never being "blanked by anonymous/newly created articles". Only those entries of the list that failed verification based on the source were removed in good faith because content on wikipedia must be verifiable. That most of the entries got removed in such a process is a testimony to the poor quality of the article. Diffeomorphicvoodoo (talk) 18:13, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

There were 7 instances of blanking and numerous instances of vandalism. Mixed in was large scale removal of content, where seeking more references would've been warranted.