Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Remittance to 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.  MBisanz  talk 00:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Remittance to India

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested PROD. Unencyclopaedic and likely to be, or become, inaccurate. Should be deleted for much the same reasons as Articles for deletion/Comparision of online remittance services in United Kingdom for sending money to India. PROD removed without explanation by IP. DanielRigal (talk) 20:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * DeleteI don't even see the point of this, completely unencyclopedic. Mister Senseless&trade; (Speak - Contributions) 22:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It was created by the same guy who did the other AfDed article. I am pretty sure he did it in good faith, thinking it was useful information. He just didn't understand the distinction between useful information and encyclopaedic information. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:NOTDIR— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  00:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Whilst the creator may not have understood with the first article, xe did understand with this one. This article, in contrast to the deleted one, has prose content, and even a source discussing the subject of remittances to India in depth.  See the article by Chishti.  DanielRigal, instead of repeatedly trying to delete this article, you should have considered simply editing it.  You have an edit button.  You could have just zapped the table and made it into a stub about remittances to India.  It's not as though there is a shortage of sources on the subject .  You were even handed one on a platter by the article's creator.  Be bold and edit!  Deletion nominations are not the only tools in the toolbox. Uncle G (talk) 01:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see a subject here distinct from remittances in general, and there is already an article about that. Why break it down more than that? We don't need a sub-article on every single subject covering its application to each country. We don't need or want Pancakes in Germany, for example. Such things should only exist if there is enough to say about the individual countries to justify a separate article. The fact that this is a stub indicates that there is not. Since you took the inappropriate stuff out there is very little left. I have no objection to what little there is being moved into the remittance article but I see no future for this as a separate article. I strongly suspect that an article of this type could only ever be a list of remittance services and Wikipedia is not a business directory. Just because I am a deletionist does not mean that I mindlessly tag everything for deletion on sight and I resent being characterised in this way. I do rescue articles when I see scope for it. In this case, I don't think there is any hope for this one. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * We break it down more than that because the world outside of Wikipedia has broken it down more than that. (Addressing subjects as the world has documented them is the very foundation of our notability criteria.)  Multiple independent sources exist that treat this very subject in depth.  You haven't read them yet, have you?  Go and read them!  No-one said anything about mindlessness apart from you.  I said nothing about mindlessness.  I merely said that you've just tagged the article for deletion, again and again, using only one tool from the toolbox when it isn't even the correct tool.  Mindlessness is your characterization, of your own actions as they are described to you.  If you don't like your own characterization of your own actions, then do something about it.  Change your actions. From what you write above, your actions are based upon your lack of understanding of our Article development process and our Editing policy.  The fact that an article is currently a stub says nothing about the subject.  You're wrong to think that way.  Most of Wikipedia is currently stubs.  All of Wikipedia (with a vanishingly small number of exceptions) was a stub once.  The provenances and depths of the sources available are what counts.  They show whether an article can be expanded from its beginnings as a stub.  And that very process of starting from a stub and expanding is how articles have been written here for the past eight years. This is a collaboratively written project.  Put in the effort to collaboratively write.  Look at the sources available for any given subject, and attempt to expand the article from them.  Kerrrzapping a price list and transforming it into a good start of an article on remittances to India you will find rewarding, not least because you will know that you've transformed a poor article into a good one.  Trust me.  &#9786;  So follow the various "find sources" links above, pick a source, and start writing.  Begin with Goopta's IMF report if you like.  It has some verifiable facts in its second paragraph that you could put straight into this article.  (Hint: What quadrupled between 1991 and 2003?  It wasn't a population of elephants. &#9786;) Uncle G (talk) 12:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think our approaches diverge as much as you think. The article, at the time I tagged it, was an obvious candidate for deletion, as others have agreed. You have turned it into something completely new and different by deleting almost all of its content and starting from scratch. It is now effectively a completely new article and should be considered as such. I guess somebody could complain that doing this circumvented the right of anybody who wanted to vote "keep" on the original article, but that was so unlikely to happen that I don't have a problem with it. I still think that it would be better as a section within the remittance article where the subject can be given a more global perspective and the common elements in all remittance systems covered without duplication. This need not be at the expense of having good solid coverage of the Indian remittance industry. It is not like the remittance article is too large or unwieldy as it stands. That said, I am now persuaded that it could be a separate article, although I still see this as the second best option at this stage. Accordingly, my recommendation on the new article is weak merge with a second preference of "keep". I am not sure how we should approach the AfD from now on as the whole thing is a bit moot. I would be happy to withdraw the nomination but some people have already voted to delete, based on the old content. I guess we have to let the closing admin decide how to handle that? Although we disagree about some things, we are both trying to achieve the same thing, i.e. to remove poor content and add, or facilitate the adding, of good content. Can we try to make the tone a bit less aggressive in future? --DanielRigal (talk) 14:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:BEFORE which explains useful steps to take to avoid embarassment at AFD. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I did not exercise the deletion tool. I edited the article, as you could have, with the editing tool.  Even an editor without an account has the tool that I used.  No deletion was involved anywhere.  This is the point.  You're erroneously conflating deletion with editing, both in your approach to the tools available in the toolbox and in your thinking of what the tools even are.  If you think that this is "new and different" (when in fact much of the content is the same and the citations have merely been cleaned up using the appropriate citation templates) then think about how it was made so.  It wasn't deleted to make it "new and different".  It was edited.  Uncle G (talk) 21:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I can see that it would have been better if I had stubbed it and suggested the merge but I don't accept that I am suffering from some fundamental misunderstanding in my approach to Wikipedia. I have rescued other articles in the past. My mistake here was to fail to recognise that a couple of sentences in the article were rescuable and pointed the way to a different approach to the subject. It looked like a basic act of uncontentious housekeeping to put it up for AfD, and others clearly thought the same. The trouble is that it looked so obvious that I genuinely missed the scope to completely recast it. I will take more care to look out for rescuable "curate's egg" scenarios in future. Anyway, to make it official, I would like to formally withdraw the nomination. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Evidently notable so I have done a little cleanup and added a citation. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - can be rescued easily - see WP:BEFORE. Bearian (talk) 20:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's a dictionary definition of one minor statistic. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 16:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as dicdef. Stifle (talk) 19:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It is nothing like a dictionary definition as there is no focus on a particular word, etymology, pronounciation, etc. The article is a stub.  Please see WP:DICDEF which explains the difference.  Colonel Warden (talk) 19:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Data but Merge with Remittance (possibly with redirect to a section on India) unless & until more is developed in the India section of that page. Ventifax (talk) 22:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect with Remittance. There's no reason to have separate articles for each country on this phenomenon. The main article suffices. --Sloane (talk) 23:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete/merge This doesn't need an article of its own as the topic itself hasn't been talked about in third-party sources. Basing it off on one news story violates WP:NOT as encyclopedia articles should be general topics in themselves and not specific details based off of one news report. Themfromspace (talk) 05:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The topic is discussed at length in numerous third-party sources and so your opening statement is false. Since you seem to have had trouble noticing the several sources already supplied, I have added another - a substantial paper published by the IMF.  Please note that participants at AFD are expected to look beyond the current state of the article, per our editing policy.  This is not a GA review - we are considering a stub here. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached, based on the rewritten article. Had it not been rewritten totally, I would have closed as delete.  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DGG (talk) 05:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Running the risk of pedantry, this AfD is really about Remittances to India, yes? Remittance to India is a redirect.  Baileypalblue (talk) 08:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes - I moved the article in the course of improvements. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. The subject is clearly notable; it's an economic phenomenon that accounts for 3% of India's GDP.  There's plenty of reliable source coverage available to satisfy the general notability guideline.  The subject is deep enough that people could (presumably do) make their careers studying it, so I don't think WP:DICDEF or WP:NOTDIR are serious concerns here.  The outstanding question is where to cover the topic.  People have suggested merging to remittance: why not merge to Economy of India?  It has at least as good a claim to the subject, and the subject could be developed there in much greater depth without overbalancing the article.  The fact that multiple unrelated subjects have deep claims on this topic indicates that it should be merged into none of them, and remain a separate article instead.  Keeping the subject independent gives it more breathing space/room to grow.  Baileypalblue (talk) 08:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  —  Salih  ( talk ) 16:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Per WP:Heymann rewrite and Baileypalblue. Certainly notable and sources certainly exist. The rest remains regular editing. -- Banj e  b oi   11:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as Uncle G has it correct. This is not the same as earlier deleted articles. Any current concerns can easily be met with WP:CLEANUP.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: the poor unsourced dictionary definition that was nominated for deletion has been completely rewritten into a well sourced article, which given the financial importance to hundreds of millions of people, certainly could (and I think should) become a well referenced Feature Article. See the diffs.  T L Miles (talk) 16:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: rewritten informative sourced article. It's closing time! pablo hablo. 22:10, 12 March 2009 (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.