Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Reliance scams


 * 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 to Reliance Industries. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 23:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

List of Reliance scams

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Reason: I believe that this page violates a series of WP policies such as content forking and the inability to create a neutral point of view. This was nominated for PROD and CSD before but a thorough discussion is required, hence this AfD. The page has been created to disparage the subject by quoting news sources that have speculative data. WP:CRITS essentially recommends that such pages that are "dedicated to negative criticism of a topic is usually discouraged" and I think these are valid reasons to discuss its existence.

Request a fellow user to please complete the AfD process. 2405:204:A8:6E73:CD9F:5090:40C2:251D (talk) 12:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Completing nomination on behalf of IP, requested at WT:AFD. I have not looked at this closely enough to form an opinion at this time. -- Finngall   talk  17:53, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Finngall   talk  17:54, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. -- Finngall   talk  17:55, 13 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge -- The scams list is atrociously assembled. A proper rewrite would shorten it. The core Reliance article isn't so long to preclude combination of the scams article. That would allow some context, which is missing. Rhadow (talk) 18:19, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge - By way of disclosure, I declined the earlier PROD for procedural reasons, and recommended that it should go to AfD for proper discussion. That being said, I think merging the useful content into the main Reliance Industries page would be a good outcome.PohranicniStraze (talk) 19:21, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge as per Rhadow --Rusf10 (talk) 22:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Baby miss  fortune 23:06, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Baby miss  fortune 23:06, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Baby miss  fortune 23:06, 13 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete or Redirect – Thank you for starting the discussion, . I thought I’d follow up to my original comments here. While merging would have been ideal to any list that’s written so haphazardly and without context, I think the primary sentiment and/or the intention of the article is the problem and remains one where a neutral point of view would not be straightforward to produce even if we were to selectively edit it. The issue, as the way I look at it, is not only the existence of a separate page but the content and the theme themselves. Adding the content in the original subject page would not solve the problem of content forking and NPOV, as I had mentioned originally. As we all know that WP:CRITS discourages (though not explicitly forbids) content that is only intended to negatively promote a subject, I strongly believe that deletion (or redirection) is a valid option. Having said that, it is not entirely responsible of us to altogether ignore these sources where the data has been extracted from. Since the original page already has a section, it would make more sense for us editors to go through that section as well and do the needful. Alternatively, I believe the use of words like “scams” and “controversies” is generally frowned upon on WP and something that we should avoid however the discussion ends. That’s all. 2405:204:11B:A590:3CBA:D227:5D45:79CA (talk) 12:11, 15 December 2017 (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.