Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British Raj


 * 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   speedy keep. Wikipedia is not cleanup. (non-admin closure) Bryce  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 11:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

British Raj

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Reason: The article for the main part is not about the British Raj but rather Indian independence along with a whole load of socialist revisionism. Eighteen months ago I requested that Indian independence apart from the relevant paragraphs be removed along with a whole load of npov socialist revisionism but to no avail.Twobells (talk) 14:42, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep a clearly notable subject, a content dispute is not a valid reason for deletion. MilborneOne (talk) 15:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep per above- William 15:22, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. There obviously needs to be an article about the British Raj. This one quite appropriately deals with the variety of events and aspects of India during the period of the Raj. Aridd (talk) 16:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: The subject deserves a seperate article. However removing some content as it already exists on some other articles can be done. But most information about how the Raj started, developed and ended, key persons involved, etc. is better here. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 16:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep: A really bad faith nomination! I don't know what else to say. Joyson Prabhu  Holla at me!   17:06, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Qualified keep: I am sympathetic to some of the criticisms of Twobells at Talk:British Raj, but I do not think his or her case would persuade many Wikipedians that deletion is the answer. To me, this article has several faults. One is indeed that in some areas it lacks political objectivity, another that it is seeking to create a country called "British Raj" which never existed. All faults can be discussed and dealt with, including the name of the article. In the mean time, if this article were to be deleted, the unhappy term "British Raj" would need to redirect somewhere, but where? The article has swallowed up real subjects, the names of which now redirect here. I particularly agree with Twobells about the lack of coverage of "administration and the legal system" and have made similar comments myself about the need for an article on the pre-1947 Government of India – of course, it is not possible to deal adequately with such matters and to continue to pretend that there was a country called "British Raj" which included the princely states, because the British did not administer or legislate for the states.  I hope a more objective and historical approach will develop over the years ahead. Moonraker (talk) 17:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. As I told the nominator last week: "In regard to the attempt to delete this article, I think it would be much better to improve the article through normal editing. I can't imagine that the Wikipedia community would support having no article about the British Raj at all." --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. With an article about such an important topic, the only reason to delete would be the nonexistence of a suitable version anywhere in the history.  Is the original version better than nothing?  I believe so, and thus without any opinion of the current state of the article, I oppose deletion.  By the way, you use "NPOV" in a pejorative manner — are you sure that you mean "neutral point of view"?  Finally, I see comments at talk such as one opposing the idea of continuing to ; even if the Raj were a fiction or a hoax, it's gotten enough coverage that we could write an article about the impact of this legal fiction.  Nyttend (talk) 01:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong keep: Correct that the information about Indian independence belongs to the dedicated articles but this article also has ground for containing that information (though WP:SUMMARY should be followed for that with main article). If you think some information does not belong to this article, you should move it to the article it should be in instead of asking for a deletion per WP:UGLY. The subject has notability and there are absolutely no grounds for deletion of this - should be closed per WP:SNOW. -- lTopGunl (talk) 02:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong keep: Although, article misses some important sections and points, but deletion is a terrible idea. Agree with Joyson Prabhu about the nomination. undefined — Bill william compton  Talk   07:10, 22 January 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.