Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DANICS


 * 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   keep. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

DANICS

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested prod. Reads like a career info pamphlet, with no assertion of notability for the positions one might occupy there. Delete.  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 02:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I am new to this but I reached here from a valid category in wikipedia and it does seem to provide valid information. Why delete it when it is linked and is providing correct info? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.179.2 (talk) 05:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:NOTHOWTO and WP:NOTWEBHOST. Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 15:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No it does not. There is not one single morsel of instructional content in the article, nor (looking at its edit history) has there ever been.  And this is not a random personal image file or other non-encyclopaedic content that Wikipedia is being abused as a free WWW host for.  It is an encyclopaedic treatment, placed properly in our article namespace, of a subject named DANICS, which the article tells us to be the civil service of the union territories of Delhi and the Andaman and Nicobar Islands &mdash; as, indeed, so do the sources that it cites. Uncle G (talk) 12:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course a stub encyclopaedia article on the pay grades, admissions procedures, and structure of a particular civil service is going to look like an "info pamphlet". Containing that sort of information about that sort of subject is what an encyclopaedia article does.  And of course a stub is going to be an incomplete discussion of the subject, to the point of just containing a disconnected selection of facts.  Our Editing policy tells us that.  Articles start out like this.  See this version of Her Majesty's Civil Service for example.  Deletion policy is clear that we don't delete them unless it is impossible to grow them, as the latter article has, indeed, grown in the intervening years. There's no valid reason to think that a article on DANICS will not grow in the same way.  (Eurocentric/Americentric bias is not a valid reason.)  There's no valid reason to think that the civil service of India, including such parts as DANICS, the Indian Administrative Service, the Indian Postal Service, the Indian Ordinance Service, and the Indian Railway Personnel Service, is not capable of being as fully covered as, say, the civil services of the U.S. and the U.K. are.  (Indeed, it took the HMCS article almost a year to expand from 2 sentences to the number of paragraphs that this article already has.  And that was with systemic bias working in its favour.)  There is, on the contrary, every reason, given that sources exist from articles in The Hindu (one of which being already cited in the article), through Indian government official reports and documents (such as this rulebook), to books on Indian public administration such as ISBN 9788121205689, to think otherwise. Uncle G (talk) 12:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Strong Keep per Uncle G.Nrswanson (talk) 00:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per comments from previous editors --H8erade (talk) 02:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC).
 * Keep' It's a poor article however that sint a reason for deletion, this seems like it should be notable and it is mentioned in sources --neon white talk 08:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Snow keep. Uncle_G's completely annihilated the case for deletion.  :)— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  14:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep in agreement with S Marshall, who's in agreement with Uncle G, who's in agreement with WP policies. Drmies (talk) 16:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.