Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Programs renamed by Modi Government

]

Programs renamed by Modi Government

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp |username}}.

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

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

Merge. There is public interest to learn about this. I suggest we merge this into

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Agree, moreover why a simple list is being viewed and vandalized so much? --

talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:19, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

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)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhardwaj.ankur (talk • contribs) — Bhardwaj.ankur (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. This page should stay up. It keeps people informed. This page must stay. KeralaBlaster 11:46, 13 June 2017 (UTC)— 50.64.160.243 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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?— 203.99.204.141 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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)[reply]

• 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: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)[reply
  ]

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:CFORK. "Sonia-says-in-Maharashtra", "says-congress" in the given sources are enough to understand. Jim Carter 07:02, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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 ^[1][2][3] etc. In fact renaming old schemes was an election agenda in 2014 and a part of election speeches. ^[4]. 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)[reply]

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. [reply]

• Keep per
  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)[reply
  ]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 14:11, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• 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: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)[reply
  ]

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)[reply]

I think that the notability of the subject of the article is still under question. You can add half a dozen new citations but if all of them are from the same source, it does not help establish notability as according to

WP:GNG multiple articles by the same author or organizations are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. Diffeomorphicvoodoo (talk) 18:56, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

I think most of these sources cited are citing govt data and reports. Apart from that, there are other citations from Govt run websites which should butress the notability argument. Chirag (talk) 09:47, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are not even addressing the issue we are raising here. Notability isn't about whether the sources are valid or not. Notability means whether the subject of this article deserves an article on wikipedia. Please refer to

WP:GNG and read Tyler Durden's comment above. Diffeomorphicvoodoo (talk) 10:35, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

Nevertheless, removing content that fails verification from a wikipedia article can't be claimed to be evidence of bad faith. Diffeomorphicvoodoo (talk) 18:58, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Organised mass action can be seen as evidence of bad faith. Chirag (talk) 09:39, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A wikipedia article on a politically colored subject, with more than half of the claims failing verification, and widely circulated on social media can also be seen as evidence of bad faith. Please, I am trying to be as civil as possible with you and giving you the benefit of doubt. I expect you to extend the same courtesy to me (and others). Diffeomorphicvoodoo (talk) 10:39, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You responded later by saying "Boo Hoo. I'm not fixing it." That's beside the point; you still haven't clarified why you inserted the name of a fertiliser as a government program and the new name of that program as "Growth claims". 49.207.55.113 (talk) 08:43, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also urged you to fix it. Please go ahead and fix it. I've left it for you. Chirag (talk) 09:39, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why should I fix your childish vandalism? You should be blocked from editing for doing that. 49.207.55.113 (talk) 11:44, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: This page is being widely circulated in Web forums and talk board. I hate to say this but the page has become a political propaganda tool. Most of the sources cited are unreliable or doesn't mention in the news report that the scheme was renamed. Another problem with this is that most of the claims are alleged as its is nearly impossible to determine weather the scheme was renamed or completely relaunched from scrap. I sincerely believe that Wikipedia is not the right place for an article like this.Razer^{Text me} 07:04, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have to debate whether the content is factual and fits in Wikipedia, not the way it is being used by whom. For eg List of renamed public places in Tamil Nadu exists. And there are many such lists. Chirag (talk) 09:43, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete
  WP:WWIN, bad faith, politically motivated article. Doesn't add any value and is un-encycleopaedic. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 08:23, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep I haven't come across any valid arguments on why this article should be deleted. References can be improved for some items, and any items which do not belong to the list can be removed. But in my opinion there is no reason to delete the article completely. Aurorion (talk) 12:42, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination: besides the prose and source quality issues, this topic makes for an
  indiscriminate collection of information. It isn't significant in the least that a newly-elected legislature goes around tweaking and rebranding existing government programs, that's basically the only thing that elected officials do in any democratic environment. It's furthermore not significant in the least that opposition parties whine about it, that's their job. If there's a significant controversy broiling about this (I don't observe from given sources that there is, beyond routine government criticism) then that controversy will probably be covered in an article about this administration, but a point-by-point list of every program they've supposedly changed the name of (debated by various pundits) is unwarranted and unencyclopedic. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:53, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak keep- 1, 2, 3. Marvellous Spider-Man 17:47, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - References/sources are irrelevant. Why is it notable that names of organizations were changed? If the organizations have their own pages, discuss the name change there. If the organizations don't have their own pages, then it's not notable information. None of this seems significant. He changed the names, but why does that matter? ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐁT₳LKᐃ 20:05, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify-There seems to be a good bit of media furore about the fact that the Modi government (Indian slang for Government of India under the leader of Modi) is renaming a lot of schemes under the earlier governments and saying that he was the first to think about them. Reliable sources may be found.On the other hand the topic is slightly politically coloured leading to vandalism. Thus let the user have the article in draft space to be put back when reference and copyedit etc have been done .FORCE RADICAL (talk) 10:25, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Sources are failing verification and much of the list is rather a guess,
  Capitals00 (talk) 18:23, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete
  WP:OR. At best a couple of lines in Premiership of Narendra Modi (The government claimed this but the opposition claimed that they just renamed all the programs - that sort of thing). --regentspark (comment) 00:48, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep because the topic is notable. The party itself is bragging about it. It has wide coverage, controversies, and claims were made not from the opposition only but also from their own ally. Jionakeli (talk) 13:02, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment. Are you sure you have read that article correctly? Or perhaps you accidentally linked to the wrong article? There is nothing in that article that supports your claims. Diffeomorphicvoodoo (talk) 18:03, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. While I would
  WP:OR. MikeLynch (talk) 14:10, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete. As mentioned by several editors above, information is sounding like
  WP:RS. Neutrality of the information is also in question. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 16:52, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment. I would like to point out that intense canvassing was done in the initial part of the discussion , It has lead to various spam votes. Also, The whole premise of this article relies on allegations and unreliable source as It is quantitatively impossible to to know weather a Govt scheme was renamed , relaunched, revamped or It was a completely new scheme. There are few common areas where every Indian govt tries to focus ( Edu, agriculture , housing) and as soon as a new govt comes to power, they launch various schemes for these areas. This does not mean that the scheme renamed. Another BIG problem with this article is the sources, Either they dont mention that the scheme was renamed in the article , They talk about claims made by opposition leaders or they are unreliable blogs like FactChecker.In . Wikipedia is based on facts and to be honest there are no facts here. They are all allegation and it is impossible to determine the facts. Frankly this article is nothing but a bucket load of original research. Razer^{Text me} 12:30, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. If the article is not deleted, I would like to request the Admins to atleast clean it up and back it with reliable sources because the original creater has been repeatedly engaging in edit war whenever I try to clean up the article. Razer^{Text me} 12:35, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete--Per Regent'sPark and IvanVector.Winged Blades ^Godric 05:58, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• (Selective) Merge to
  List of government schemes in India. Some of the renames might be notable but there seems no policy-based reason to have an article just for renames, seeing as there are no sources afaict that discuss these all together. It does make sense to mention old names in the current article about such schemes though, so merging seems to be the best option. Regards SoWhy 19:49, 30 June 2017 (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.