This article was nominated for deletion on 14 June 2017. The result of the discussion was redirect to List of government schemes in India. |
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)
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)
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)
The sources 4 and 5 in the article (regarding renaming of Nirmal Bharat Abhiyan and Rajiv Awas Yojna) both don't directly state that these programs have been renamed by Modi government. They contain statements by certain politicians that make such a claim. Clearly, such statements can't be taken as reliable source for the claim that these are indeed just renamed programs. I am not sure whether unreliable source or irrelevant citation tag is more relevant here, I have tagged them as unreliable source for now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diffeomorphicvoodoo ( talk • contribs) 09:47, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
The lead has a paragraph that lists sources to support the notability of the subject of this article. However, four out of the five articles cited are opinion pieces of the same person. Two of the citations actually point to the same article reproduced on two different websites. As it stands, too much of this article is based on the same source of dubious reliability. Diffeomorphicvoodoo ( talk) 18:05, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Removed failed verification tags: In both cases, the source does not support the claim being made. For Soil Health Cards, the source simply states that such cards were also being made earlier. There is no mention of any renaming of any program. In the case of Atal Pension Yojana, the source says that the old Swavalamban Yojana scheme has been replaced by the new scheme, which isn't the same thing as saying that the old scheme has been renamed. Please discuss why you think that the source provided supports the claim before removing the failed verification tag.
Also, "In a few cases, some cosmetic changes have been made to programs and minor administrative tweaks and then renamed" is far from being an accurate summary of the evidence presented in the sources so far. For many of the entries in the list, the source provided specifically states that the old scheme has been "revamped" or "restructured". The claim about only a few of the programs in the list getting some "cosmetic changes" and "minor administrative tweaks" seems entirely to be the subjective opinion of the editor. Diffeomorphicvoodoo ( talk) 06:28, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
This sentence is meant as a remark on the citations provided in the article, and should not require further citations as far as I can see. Examples-
Large scale and indiscriminate removal of content was removed. Have added another citation that corroborates. Chirag ( talk) 10:56, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
The Creator of the article seems to believe that he owns the article and only he has the right to make changes to the article .Please see WP:OWN and discuss here first before reverting edits Razer Text me 11:36, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Procedural Close.Wrong venue.Approach WP:RFD.( non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric 06:57, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Programs renamed by Modi Government → ? – This was redirected as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Programs renamed by Modi Government, with a recommendation to merge some of the content, but there's nothing about the Modi government or renaming, and probably won't be unless the list is split chronologically. If the renaming is a significant controversy this could be added to Modi ministry or (more likely) Premiership of Narendra Modi. The current redirect is misleading, and the history should be kept somewhere but this title should not be kept as a redirect. Peter James ( talk) 18:16, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
This article was nominated for deletion on 14 June 2017. The result of the discussion was redirect to List of government schemes in India. |
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)
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)
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)
The sources 4 and 5 in the article (regarding renaming of Nirmal Bharat Abhiyan and Rajiv Awas Yojna) both don't directly state that these programs have been renamed by Modi government. They contain statements by certain politicians that make such a claim. Clearly, such statements can't be taken as reliable source for the claim that these are indeed just renamed programs. I am not sure whether unreliable source or irrelevant citation tag is more relevant here, I have tagged them as unreliable source for now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diffeomorphicvoodoo ( talk • contribs) 09:47, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
The lead has a paragraph that lists sources to support the notability of the subject of this article. However, four out of the five articles cited are opinion pieces of the same person. Two of the citations actually point to the same article reproduced on two different websites. As it stands, too much of this article is based on the same source of dubious reliability. Diffeomorphicvoodoo ( talk) 18:05, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Removed failed verification tags: In both cases, the source does not support the claim being made. For Soil Health Cards, the source simply states that such cards were also being made earlier. There is no mention of any renaming of any program. In the case of Atal Pension Yojana, the source says that the old Swavalamban Yojana scheme has been replaced by the new scheme, which isn't the same thing as saying that the old scheme has been renamed. Please discuss why you think that the source provided supports the claim before removing the failed verification tag.
Also, "In a few cases, some cosmetic changes have been made to programs and minor administrative tweaks and then renamed" is far from being an accurate summary of the evidence presented in the sources so far. For many of the entries in the list, the source provided specifically states that the old scheme has been "revamped" or "restructured". The claim about only a few of the programs in the list getting some "cosmetic changes" and "minor administrative tweaks" seems entirely to be the subjective opinion of the editor. Diffeomorphicvoodoo ( talk) 06:28, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
This sentence is meant as a remark on the citations provided in the article, and should not require further citations as far as I can see. Examples-
Large scale and indiscriminate removal of content was removed. Have added another citation that corroborates. Chirag ( talk) 10:56, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
The Creator of the article seems to believe that he owns the article and only he has the right to make changes to the article .Please see WP:OWN and discuss here first before reverting edits Razer Text me 11:36, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Procedural Close.Wrong venue.Approach WP:RFD.( non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric 06:57, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Programs renamed by Modi Government → ? – This was redirected as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Programs renamed by Modi Government, with a recommendation to merge some of the content, but there's nothing about the Modi government or renaming, and probably won't be unless the list is split chronologically. If the renaming is a significant controversy this could be added to Modi ministry or (more likely) Premiership of Narendra Modi. The current redirect is misleading, and the history should be kept somewhere but this title should not be kept as a redirect. Peter James ( talk) 18:16, 7 July 2017 (UTC)