Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poverty in 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. Tyrenius 17:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Poverty in India
There have been no significant edits to the article in months. The article has few sourced statements, and it cites information out of context. Statistical data from questionable sources are deliberately slanted to make India look like the poorest country in the world (a patently false claim). There is no precedent on wikipedia to single out the poverty situation of any country as an article, while statistics show that poverty situation in some other countries are far worse than in India. Why is India being singled out? Plus, the pictures are placed out of context and have no text in the articles to support their placement. As it stands (and has stood for months), it is offensive. There is a better article Standard of living in India where the matter of poverty in India can be put in at length so this article is also redundant with a POV title. Hkelkar 14:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I have made a significant re-organization and expansion of the article. Please re-visit the article and consider changing your vote as you see fit. --Richard 18:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment:A merge with Standard of living in India is not necessary (IMHO) as most of the NPOV information (incl images) is already there in this other article (put there by the same user too). The issue (I think) is the redundancy, 100% POV (loading the title itself to a certain POV) and misrepresented information placed with no context (for months!).Hkelkar 14:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Rewrite At present, the article is only an unsourced stub, but the article title is appropriate. There is also a Poverty in the United States article.--RF 15:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I have added some text from the Standards of Living article. I think the article has a lot of potential, see the Poverty in the United States article. --RF 15:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment:The mere fact that you could copy a large chunk of text from one article and put it in another is proof positive that the article is redundant and a waste of space.It is sufficient to keep just one article only.Hkelkar 20:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The scope of these two articles is not the same. There is also a separate Standard_of_living_in_the_United_States article. --RF 21:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Merely a forum for India-bashing. Bakaman Bakatalk 16:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Each article must respect guidelines for NPOV. Poverty in Australia, Poverty in Africa and Poverty in the United States are not forums for "bashing" either. I have also edited the article, it seems less pov now. --RF 21:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Change to Keep - I created Poverty in Pakistan for fairness, so I dont feel the need to delete anymore.Bakaman Bakatalk 22:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: That's not particularly good reasoning to vote for delete in the first place (or for keep after creating the article). Wikipedia is not a battleground between Pakistani and Indian editors. BhaiSaab talk 22:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: - its not battleground. Are you disputing the fact of poverty in Pakistan (a more widespread problem than in India)? You put it up for db only to make it a battleground.Bakaman Bakatalk 22:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm not disputing anything. I put it up for speedy deletion because the article was 8 words long, but now that you've added content, I've removed the template. BhaiSaab talk 23:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Note The above exchange is deeply, deeply depressing and yet somehow funny. Hornplease 09:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions.   -- Bakaman Bakatalk  16:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per RF. BhaiSaab talk 21:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment:Like I said, my main issue is redundancy. There is no need to have two articles Poverty in India and Standard of living in India both of which discuss the same things, so much so that RF copied text from one and put it in the other. What good does that redundancy do? There is no content in poverty article that isn;t already there in Standard of livin article so merging is unnecessary. Only fair solution is to delete the poverty article or merge the Standard of living article into the poverty article.Hkelkar 23:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree that the article could be redirected as long as it only duplicates the section of the Standards of living article, which it does now, and as long as nobody expands the article. --RF 11:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Then put up the Standard of Living article for deletion or redirect it to this one. This article title is much more meaningful to the average reader and therefore more likely to get searched on. --Richard 07:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge into the Standard of Living article as a section until that section gets too big for it. People Powered 00:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete There is NO NEED to merge. The article is already copied from the other Article. If some one can come up with a good write up (not duplication) from a neutral point of view, we can review that and then decide. As of now, this should be deleted. Doctor Bruno  Talk  14:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge any non-duplicate content to Standard of living in India, with redirect. The information currently seems largely duplicate and gives potential for a PoV fork. Espresso Addict 15:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep and expand. Type "Poverty in" into the Wikipedia search box and you will find a bunch of "Poverty in Country X" articles.  Poverty exists in many countries including the United States.  Poverty is a major problem in the Less Developed Countries (LDCs).  It's a key focus of the United Nations.  The topic is not POV per se although it is possible for an article on poverty to be written in a POV way. --Richard 07:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep on principle--not necessarily an endorsement of the current article. Poverty is within the scope of standard of living in many ways... but, it also is an important social issue and for that reason as much as any other it deserves its own article.  How is poverty and vagrancy (related) treated under law?  I know the issues comes up in the U.S. and it has to in most countries. Also countries have interesting ways of dealing with poverty... favellas in Brazil, etc. gren グレン 07:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Poverty in India exists and is a well-documented issue. It is possible to write a NPOV, verifiable and informative article about it. That is the only thing that matters. Not the intentions of the person creating it, not whether there is a similar topic on India's enemies, not whether the article is NPOV in its current state. &mdash; Ravikiran
 * Keep -- needs cleanup and expansion. - Longhair 09:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Let not make an India-Pakistan mud-slinging match on the empty stomach of crores of hungry people in the sub-continent. That they have to go to bed hungry should be a matter of concern for everyone, not a patriotic issue. Deepak D'Souza, Hyderabad, India — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.162.197.22 (talk • contribs)
 * Keep -- wheter or not articles appear about provery in other countries is irrelevant. Deleting this article will not delete poverty. As far as statistics are concerned even the Govt. of India changes it statistics on a day-to-day basis depending on what it wants to potray. To expect a civillian to have appropriate statistics is not possible.


 * An irrelevant argument. Please argue on the merits of the content, not on the motivations of the editors.Hkelkar 12:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Please Clarify whether you want to keep an article about Poverty in India or you want to keep THIS article. Both are different (I Suppose) Doctor Bruno  Talk  16:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * "Response':I have no rigid opinion on this matter. While I lean towards deleting the article on the grounds that it has nothing but a copy-paste deal from another article, some (not all) editors have provided valid reasons for keeping it. What I think should be done as the most reasonable compromise is that the article should be merged with Standard of living in India and the title Poverty in India redirected to it, as has been done (similarly) in Poverty in Indonesia, for instance.Hkelkar 00:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: The above anon chose to keep. You can't simply strike out their input, no matter what motivates them. Plenty of editors at AfD simply give a Keep or Delete with no reason whatsoever. You're not going to strike them all are you? Please unstrike. The closing admin will decide whether or not to consider their edit as part of the discussion. See WP:BITE also. -- Longhair 12:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep --- This article needs a lot of cleanup and expansion but I see no reason for deleting it. I agree with Hkelkar that argument needs to be on merit and facts. If government of India does not provide correct facts, what are the IMF and UN for? If the editors are commited they can find correct reports. The article is already growing. It should not be deleted. Poverty in India is a truth and there are many other articles with the same name format (Poverty_in_x). And please don't strike other's comments! --Vikas Kumar Ojha 12:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment:While I fully agree that the subject matter is relevant, the article has not grown one iota since I put it up for AfD. All of the stuff there is a copy-paste from Standard of living in India. I suggest a merge of both articles at least.Hkelkar 12:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong keep, obviously. There are a million academic studies of poverty in India. Four-fifths of the people who live under the poverty line as defined by the UN are Indians. The current article is appropriate, not terribly unsourced, and NPOV. The Standard of Living in India article contains several other details, as well as a summary of this article. This is exactly how things should be. The standard of living could be measured by several different indicators, including for example life expectancy, female literacy, degree of political freedom etc., and not just income-related indicators. See Human Development Index. POverty is strictly defined as income below a certain level, that level being defined as the minimum required for the purchase of a diet with enough calories to maintain average bodyweight. The two things are not the same. Frankly, this argument is ridiculous and this should never even have been brought to AfD. Hornplease 08:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * comment:This article is about the article on wikipedia, not about poverty in India as a subject.I don;t dispute the obvious truth about poverty in India. I DO dispute the articel as it stands today, which is nothing but a copy-paste of the standard of living article. Keep one and get rid of the other by merging.Hkelkar 16:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * comment: From one perspective, you're right. The debate is whether to delete this particular article about Poverty in India.  However, deletion inhibits writing and editing.  If we believe the topic is worthwhile, it is better (IMO) to take the current article and expand it than to delete it and hope that someone will write a better article from scratch.
 * Merging is certainly one solution. Another is to trim the "Poverty" section in Standard of Living in India down so that it is a summary of this one and then expand this one.  This article certainly needs expansion.  There are many, many ways in which it could be expanded.  One would be to describe the government programmes in greater detail.  If we delete every article because it doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards now, then we will tend to limit Wikipedia.  If we work to improve articles, then we will grow Wikipedia in both quantity and quality.
 * I recognize that the opinions expressed here are just my opinions and represent an "inclusionist" philosophy rather than a "deletionist" philosophy. Nonetheless, those are my thoughts and you may adopt them or reject them as you will.
 * --Richard 17:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * In this case, I adopt the principle but reject it's application here.The article is still mostly copied from the standard of living article. However, your suggestion that poverty section in the standard of living article be trimmed down and expanded in the poverty article is not so bad and worth thinking about.Hkelkar 18:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment:As of this moment I am doubtful as to whether the article should be deleted or not. It would seem that the better solution is to shorten the poverty section in the standard of living article and expand the poverty article and cross-reference when needed. To all those who have been following this AfD (and any other interested parties) I would be very happy if you would peruse the poverty article, as well as the standard of living article, and fix any redundancies by cross-referencing.Thanks.Hkelkar 22:14, 22 September 2006 (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.