Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guidelines for Indian Government Websites


 * 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 merge‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__ to Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. Daniel (talk) 02:55, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Guidelines for Indian Government Websites

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

No third-party sources were found. Sohom (talk) 20:47, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Internet,  and India.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:14, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: Sourcing is only to government websites/documents; basically explaining a technical standard to be followed. Nothing found outside of primary sources. Oaktree b (talk) 21:18, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Relisting to consider new sources mentioned in discussion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:40, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I have given enough References to validate the source.
 * Like ADA in USA, AODA in Canada, there are accessibility laws in every country and lately India comes with GIGW. Though I didn't rate myself as an expert in Wikipedia but I am expert in the subject matter.
 * I can help improve the quality if this the reason of deletion but this article is absolutely necessary in Wikipedia. Shivaji Mitra (talk) 11:20, 8 November 2023 (UTC) 49.37.39.142 (talk) 06:42, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Shivaji Mitra (I assume that is your correct account) I will point out that neithier ADA or AODA have articles of their own. Also, we need third party sources to support each individual article, if there are not third party sources, it will be deleted. Regards Sohom (talk) 17:49, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what exactly you mean by 3rd party, do check W3C Accessibility for India Page: https://www.w3.org/WAI/policies/india/
 * Laws are mentioned in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_accessibility
 * ADA = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans_with_Disabilities_Act_of_1990
 * AODA = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accessibility_for_Ontarians_with_Disabilities_Act,_2005
 * Philippines = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_accessibility_initiatives_in_the_Philippines
 * UK = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equality_Act_2010
 * etc..
 * 3rd Party references are given. Shivaji Mitra (talk) 17:59, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The W3CAI source is a good start, but you need atleast 3 third-party (i.e. not affliated with the Indian government) sources that discuss this guideline in depth. Notice how, for example the american law article has literal columns of references to other people, education institutions, supreme court cases, newspapers and such talking about the Disability guidelines. To show that GIGW is eligible for a article, you will need to show that these guidelines have been talked about in depth in India (or even outside India). Sohom (talk) 18:43, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Added 12 Authentic "Sources" to support the article. Shivaji Mitra (talk) 05:35, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Shivaji Mitra Those look like really good sources. I will look at them over this week and withdraw my nom if they fullfill the notability, which I think they will. I would just suggest using the sources as part of the page instead of as a list at the end. -- Sohom (talk) 15:16, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Merge into Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 The ADA and AODA are enshrined laws in their respective jurisdictions, and the article title and content should reflect requirements specifically based on accessibility rather than voluntary guidelines which seem to be focused on corporate and design needs first (nobody outside standards orgs cares about quality focus or lifecycle management), rather than the user.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 00:13, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge summary into Web_accessibility. Owen&times; &#9742;  00:08, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm happy to support a Merge/Redirect as well, on reviewing the sources I do see a lot of mentions (which is a good start) but not a lot of significant coverage of specifically these guidelines. Sohom (talk) 12:54, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge per above. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:01, 23 November 2023 (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.