Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/India Programme XII on Diabetes Research


 * 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. Should the subject become clearly notable, the article can be restored.  Sandstein  08:17, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

India Programme XII on Diabetes Research

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Article on a research program which was announced only a few weeks ago and hasn't even been formulated yet; the sole source claims only that the government "plans to invite proposals". Programmes I through XI don't seem to be notable (as evidenced by, for example, a lack of any relevant Google hits), and there's no indication that this one will be either. See also WP:FUTURE. Psychonaut (talk) 13:34, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete I agree with nominator that the program isn't notable yet, if it ever will be. There is one Reliable Source, from the Times of India, announcing the launch of this initiative; otherwise nothing. I can't think of a good redirect target. --MelanieN (talk) 16:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete The topic is not notable yet.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:01, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep I place my bet with the author Vivek Rai on this one. Recreating it in a month is just annoying. wp:future? why not nominate the Chinese space station or if it's proposals you'd like there is a never ending list of proposed u.s. space stations which were nothing but paper. Other government departments are talking about it's funding and so forth, it's a goer. Penyulap  ☏  13:55, 6 Jun 2012 (UTC)
 * Nobody doubts that it's going to happen. The question is whether it will become notable, i.e., receive significant coverage from independent reliable sources. --MelanieN (talk) 14:17, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Governments that don't produce copious amounts of hot air ? when has that EVER happened ? This article is inevitable. Penyulap  ☏  20:43, 6 Jun 2012 (UTC)
 * I doubt if government reports are going to be considered as independent reliable sources for this purpose. We would be looking more for media reporting, like the one article we do have from the Times of India. (If a government tree falls in the forest, and the media don't write about it, it never happened for Wikipedia purposes.) --MelanieN (talk) 22:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well luckily we have sources to choose from, a little bit of tabliod, a little bit of hotair.gov, and more talk will sweep through the plague of fat people across the world, (talking is easier than dieting, so it's a sure thing, they either complain the government is not doing enough about the plague of fatness, or the government issues scientifically proven studies full of facts too boring to read in countless volumes, promptly ignored, as all good advice is.) There is Zero chance of Diabetes going away, India is developing in such a way as the problem will only increase. Penyulap  ☏  02:54, 7 Jun 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak keep Program has not started yet and the government is going to spend only 25 crores for diabetes it doesn,t establishes article notability. Moreover its research program that might take years into action and results will be???  Dr meetsingh  Talk  08:35, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You said "weak keep" but your argument seems to be for "delete". Could you clarify, please? --MelanieN (talk) 14:07, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Program is a proposal to tackle diabetes in future by govt and who knows this program might become notable in coming years with its good research this point may favour in "keep" to this article Dr meetsingh  Talk  14:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete The keep and weak keep !votes are all making arguments based upon potential future notability. But wikipedia does not create articles based upon WP:FUTURE.  We would need reliable sources now for an article to be kept.  Unfortunately my searches do not turn up any reliable source coverage other than the single article in Times of India  which talks about the government planning to invite proposals in the future.  This appears to be a case of WP:TOOSOON.  P.S.  Not that the Chinese space station article has anything to do with this one, but Penyulap, please note that even though that article talks about the future it is well sources in reliable sources - which is a huge difference and justifies an article based upon WP:GNG. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 14:40, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it is WP:notenoughindianeditors because of wp:bias. To find the context I went to the department of science website, which is all in English, and followed through the other gov websites, also all in English with a wealth of information. I find that it is staggering that India has the largest number of diabetics in the world, and I'm not sure if wikipedia even covers the subject of what the government is doing about it. One thing I surely know is, if we can't find and make welcome people willing to write on Indian subjects, wikipedia will always remain biased. Diabetes in India, well, if that is not notable subject I don't know what is, where is wikipedias coverage of this ?


 * Looking carefully at the news article, I see the ministry made an announcement, but who was the spokesperson and where did that happen ? It is not possible that the announcement was made in secret, and the official must have a name, something tells me there more to be found on this subject, if only there were editors willing to look. Meh, what do I care. Penyulap  ☏  10:20, 8 Jun 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that diabetes in India may well be a notable topic. Instead of trying to cover the subject backhandedly, via an article about a proposed government program, should there be an article about Diabetes in India? No, I see that other countries do not have such articles. But I just added an India section to Diabetes mellitus. --MelanieN (talk) 14:03, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That is an understated way to refer to the topic I must say. What we are looking at here is a serious systemic problem where deletion discussion is badly designed and carried out. I find that excellent editors are approached poorly rather than successfully which is so easy to do. What should be done here is simply to move it to the empty larger notable topic, A cartoon comes to mind here of a policeman with a gun who looks at the toilet he just used and then fumbles for his firearm, before realising with some embarrassment he should use the flush button. He is so accustomed to using a gun he just doesn't look for proper solutions anymore. This kind of discussion with promising new editors gives me cause to reflect on the failings of wikipedia.


 * The new section looks good.


 * It would be nice if there was someone willing to write on this topic, any ideas where we can find such an editor ? anyone ? hmm ? Rather than this typical throw out the baby with the bathwater AfD and BITE combination, it would have been, and still is, a better idea to properly and politely approach the editor and assist in improving the article, and then after you have demonstrated that you are here to assist, suggest improving the profile of the article with a better title and broader coverage, as it is, and as it is project wide, more time, effort and text will be spend on discussing deletion of article and valuable editor rather than pushing the topic over the line. Penyulap  ☏  14:17, 9 Jun 2012 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. --MelanieN (talk) 18:20, 9 June 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.