Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scams in India

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 delete. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scams in India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

After one more editor expressed support for AfD at WT:IN, I am nominating this for deletion. Contains lot of OR, and personal opinions. Might be converted to a list. TheMike •^{Wassup doc?} 10:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete original research. Maybe some minor elements of the content could be in a broader article about either corruption or con artistry. MLA (talk) 12:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete wow, over 300 citations! You don't see that at AfD every day. Horribly WP:POV and non-encyclopaedic. So biased as to almost read like an attack page and falls foul of WP:ADVOCACY. Not helped that the subject looks to be already dealt with much better at Corruption in India. Maybe put a rediect in to that page but definitely lose this one.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 16:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Yeah, I was amazed by the amount of work the author has put into this article. Any comments on converting this into a list titled something like List of political scams in India, or any appropriate title? TheMike •^{Wassup doc?} 17:01, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can't see why that's needed, in a country the size of India the list would end up massive over time. If anything usable can be salvaged from this it could probably be put as a sub-section of Corruption in India.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 17:11, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The scams in this list should be expanded even if they are stubs. Just listing the scams doesnt do anything for knowledge.
    • You don't discard the information based on size of nation or data. Now, it is mere list of scams in India. Yes, the number of scams WILL increase, that shouldn't deter us in archiving those details. I don't recommend pushing that as subsection under Corruption in India, instead recommend to provide the link to Scams in India under "See also" of Corruption in India --User:Praveen goud.
  • Agree with you. TheMike •^{Wassup doc?} 17:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. This must be integrated with Corruption in India and under the header List of Political scams. But the list has to be maintained irrespective of the size and how massive it is going to be over a period of time. If the list of oscar award winners can be maintained, why not this!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noblewikicause (talk • contribs) 17:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is an issue which can have many POVs, and it can be very difficult to see a NPOV. Anyway, lets not have an unconnected discussion here. Also, Noblewikicause, kindly sign in talk pages using four tildes (~~~~). TheMike •^{Wassup doc?} 17:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, no it doesn't. There doesn't appear to be a comparable list for any other country of the world, the nearest thing is the List of confidence tricks, but that talks generically about types of trick, not specific instances. The list as is is just a collection of alleged crimes, which is an indiscriminate list, whereas the Oscar list is a defined cultural event of massive notability which occurs once a year. Even worse, a lot of the alleged 'crimes' are actually political statements about the political and legal systems in India, not an encyclopaedic list of events with a defined criteria. The current inclusion criteria is clearly based on someone's political agenda. Note, I'm not saying that agenda is right, wrong or anything else, but wikipedia is not the place to promote it. Note also that taking out the huge chunks of blatant WP:OR with an edit summary of To avod deletion , removing the root causes to be incorporated later is about as subtle as a hole in the head. The whole page is only there as an advocacy page with no understanding of the purpose of wikipedia or any apparent desire to edit in an encyclopaedic manner.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 19:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Corruption in India. Yeah, that's a heck of a lot of refs, but way too much POV here, that the corruption article is a suitable redirect target. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 08:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would recommend to provide the link to Scams in India under "See also" of Corruption in India --User:Praveen goud.
• Comment. The author has changed the article by removing some controversial sections. It is now basically a list. TheMike •^{Wassup doc?} 11:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • With an edit summary that suggests they've only done that to get past AfD and then intend to put it back in again. Even as a list I don't think this is worthy of keeping.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 13:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I removed the root causes. The section has only Scams in India. Assume, this wouldn't be an issue for discussion of deletion anymore. Grouping the list of scams of nation is good for easy analysis before hand rather than hiding the scams seperately to be searched. Wiki has list of countries, list of counties, list of blah blah, notable list.... --User:Praveen goud. —Preceding undated comment added 16:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SYNTH. I was the "one more editor" referred to in the nomination statement. The article is a entirely conjecture at this point, it muddles up different problems with the title of "scam" -- a sex scandal, a mosque-temple issue, corruption, political obfuscation etc etc. It doesn't help that a good chunk of the content was removed to To avod (sic) deletion , removing the root causes to be incorporated later. A list is feasible on scams, but it needs to have a definite criteria, not a jamboree of anything you can find, and definitely this article and its history are not starting points. —SpacemanSpiff 16:54, 15 February 2011 (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.