Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fact sheet on 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   keep.  Sandstein  06:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Fact sheet on India

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No other country has corresponding page as information should be included within main country article if relevant. Reichsfurst (talk) 16:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. I don't understand the policy grounds for this deletion request.  The page seems to be validly encyclopedic, or at least almanac, information; it doesn't obviously belong on some other project, and the facts are verifiable.  It may be that this page is simply the first instance of a type of page that could be profitably added to each country as soon as someone gets bothered to do it.  As Lord Featherstonehaugh-Fanshawe wrote in The Great Western Railway Co. v. Haddock, "there is no precedent for anything until it has been done for the first time." - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Simply because no other country has corresponding page is not a sufficient reason to decide what content must be compiled and which pages are appropriate on wikipedia.
 * Keep

The reasons proposed for deletion are not listed as wiki's guiding reasons for deletion. Instead of deleting this, I encourage that such pages be created for all countries.

FWIW, tabular fact sheet pages of the kind similar to Fact sheet on India are all over wikipedia, many highly viewed per day. See these for example: etc.
 * List of countries by sex ratio
 * Lists of countries and territories
 * Table of World Heritage Sites by country
 * Table of voting systems by country
 * Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2008

Finally, I submit for matter of record that Reichsfurst originally marked the article for deletion with the following claim: "Information contained in article on India - merge would be unnecessary. This seems to basically be information copied from another site."

The proposal and reasons for deletion above, submitted on 16:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC) by Reichsfurst, have not answered my humble question to Reichsfurst. I asked the wiki contributor - "please identify where this information is available, and which site is it copied from?" I have yet to get an answer from Reichsfurst. If an answer is provided, and it is persuasive, I will happily reconsider my position. Thank you. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 16:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * In line with Articles for deletion please note that ApostleVonColorado is the page's creator, which he has not made clear in his above comment. Reichsfurst (talk) 17:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 17:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete despite the above user's filibuster, I'm not convinced. This article presents nothing that isn't already in India or any of the related articles. "Fact sheets" are just plain not how we do things around here. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd agree, this title does the article no favors; something like India (statistical summary) might be more becoming. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I like 'change the title' suggestion. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 20:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I just re-read the article on India. Most category metrics of Fact sheet on India are not mentioned. A few that are, do not have the relative basis - that is how many countries is the ranking based on. Being 39th of 40 countries is contextually different than being 39th of 212 countries. Adding relative basis info into India, or merging all the current or future category metrics into wiki article on India may not be appropriate. I am not convinced that economic metrics such as 'Total reserves (includes gold, current US$)' belongs inside a general article such as India. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 20:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment One thing that's a bit troubling about this article leans almost exclusively on the World Bank's data, a fair bit of which seems estimated or subjective. The article almost seems like it should be titled 'The World Bank's development indicators for India'. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, 60% of the stats are from world bank database, 40% elsewhere. Please note alternate independent sources of data for various categories exist, e.g. IMF, UNICEF, WHO, Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, etc databases. Please see WP:VNT - the guideline I followed. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 21:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I really just want to stress that this isn't about criticising the work which you have done AVC, I'm just not sure that this is the place to display it and the information it contains or a reference to the data could be inserted elsewhere. Reichsfurst (talk) 22:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I appreciate all the comments, as well as reasoned arguments that go with "keep" or "delete." Note that the article was created less than 24 hours ago. My intent was to add sufficient explanatory text, and some context, to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader. For example, not just rank with basis, but how the metric compares with the best in the world, the world average, etc.; plus, what each metric means in a context that the general reader can appreciate. I envision future wiki editors will add more tables and update these tables not only for India vis a vis the world, but also for each state/region/territory within the country - again, with context for the general reader. I feel tables enhance readability of statistical data lists; this when presented with context is validly encyclopedic. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 01:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - I simply dont understand why this has been nominated on which wikipedia policy? If there is no similar article for other country doesnt mean this one also to be deleted. KuwarOnline Talk''' 07:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - There is nothing in the article that is against Wikipedia's deletion policy. Please don't waste our time. Tinpisa (talk) 10:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * keep - fairly informative article, fulfilling all criteria to be on wikipedia, its a fact sheet not advertisemet. we should try to create one for other countries like china, us and uk too. Whileships savedhead (talk) 04:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Updated Comment: Nwlaw63 commented, "one thing that's a bit troubling about this article leans almost exclusively on the World Bank's data." I already clarified that only about 60% of the data was from the World Bank databases, rest elsewhere. As I dig deeper and add text describing the meaning of each metric, I am finding that the World Bank database is actually a compilation of numerous independent databases collected by multinational teams across the world. For example, while The World Bank stores the data on electricity produced by each country in its databases, the ultimate source of the data is International Energy Agency team in Vienna. Similarly, many other data is sourced from independent team of experts in different parts of the world. In summary, the data in the table is from diverse reputable sources. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 04:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Reasons for keeping: As the creator of this page, I submit reasons in addition to the above, as to why this article be kept and extended to other countries beyond India. The page meets all WP:GNG guidelines. It has significant coverage, is a subject covered in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Reliable sources, each reputable and secondary sources, allow verifiable evaluation. Citations are already in the article, that anyone can use to verify. I already discussed above that multiple reputable sources are available. I, the creator of this page, is not the source, nor affiliated with World Bank, IMF, IEA, EU Commission, United States' EIA, WSJ, Financial Times, UNESCO, etc; thereby this page meets wiki's independent of the subject guideline. The sources compile this data on a routine basis, many every year, implying significant coverage in reliable sources. The sources, such as international newspapers discuss such data routinely, and teams across the world collect and publish this data in secondary sources, thus meeting the presumed guideline.

In summary, the article meets every guideline specified by wikipedia's WP:GNG for inclusion. I also note, that neither the original proposal to delete this article nor one subsequent comment has, yet, identified any specific guideline from wiki's guidelines for deletion that suggest that the article should be deleted. I await further comments, and intend to use the comments to help improve the article. Meanwhile, I plan to continue to improve and add content to the article, to the best of my ability and when I find free time. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 16:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Continued reasons for deleting - The deletion policy states that a page should be deleted on the grounds of: 'Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia'. A brief read of the definition or glance at any existing encyclopaedia (including this one) will quickly show that they contain article's not tables of data. If they were to pursue such a policy separated from the main article to which they refer then we would end up with hundreds of additional pages of 'data' devoid of direct relevance - think pages devoted to tables of 'Chelsea football club's stats for 2011-12' or 'Harry Potter sales by continent by year', the resultant information when in separation from the main article cannot and does not qualify its own notability. As such I would go so far as to argue that this page represents a content fork, another grounds for deletion. Please also see - which states that wikipedia should not contain Excessive listings of statistics. Thank you. Reichsfurst (talk) 21:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment on continued reasons: The section Reichsfurst cites, clarifies that articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader. In cases where statistics are necessary, wiki guidelines urge that we consider using tables to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists. The article Fact sheet on India does provide explanatory text, as well use table instead of indiscriminate excessive statistics. Wikipedia policy gives an example, Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2008, to explain this guideline. The new article meets this guideline, and is similar to Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2008. I have looked at wikipedia, and numerous wiki articles include tables, and the table is almost the entire content of many. For example, see links I provided in my comment above on February 8 2012. Even Britannica has article with and primarily of tables, see Britannica's article on electoral college results of U.S. presidential elections.


 * The claim that the article is content forking is unsupported, just like original claim of user Reichsfurst: This seems to basically be information copied from another site. I requested support for later a week ago. Reichsfurst has not provided the support. I request that support be provided for both these claims.


 * Please note that wiki defines content forking as the creation of multiple separate articles all treating the same subject. Wikipedia also explains that there is a difference between unacceptable content forking and when we must create separate articles on related topic (see Content forking and WP:SS. I request Reichsfurst to identify which wiki article provides relative ranking and explanation of metric, for metrics on the page Fact sheet on India. Thank you, ApostleVonColorado (talk) 22:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment, clarification needed - The user Reichsfurst who initiated the tag that Fact sheet on India be deleted, has started contributing to it. The first good faith contribution from Reichsfurst is:

Does the fact that a user requesting deletion starts adding content to make it more useful, suggest that the article is worth keeping and could be made useful in an encyclopedic context? Thank you, ApostleVonColorado (talk) 23:11, 15 February 2012 (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.