Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Contributions attributed to British colonials and British Raj in modern 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   delete. Cirt (talk) 00:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Contributions attributed to British colonials and British Raj in modern India

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This is a clear example of original research via synthesis of unrelated news items, essays, opinions etc. The claims for or against the contributions are subjective personal opinions only. Ragib (talk) 21:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  -- – Spaceman  Spiff  21:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions.  -- – Spaceman  Spiff  21:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions.  -- – Spaceman  Spiff  21:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete an obvious WP:POVFORK, with an inappropriate title and no redeeming content. Did anyone even check the only cited source: a BBC report about a school exhibition in Britain, in which a history teacher at the school is paraphrased as saying that, "Colonial rule in both cases brought benefits, he argues. In India the positives included a unifying influence in the country, a functioning civil service and a basic infrastructure. ". This is turned into a "Unifying the country" bullet point in the article as one of the "several contributions attributed to the British that are recognized as having proved beneficial" without any context, or sense of irony. I'm surprised that the prod was declined, since it's hard to construct a better parody of what encyclopedic article should not be. Abecedare (talk) 21:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Original research with lots of POV problems on the horizon. The title itself is suspect with the passive "attributed to"... by whom. Shadowjams (talk) 23:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - POVFORK. The British Raj article does an excellent job of covering the subject. this is unnecessary and POV.--Sodabottle (talk) 04:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - improved the article today, had already placed a tag requesting future editors to expand it. Renamed the article to "Positive legacy of British Colonial Rule and Imperialism in India", a more appropriate and neutral title. mrigthrishna (talk) 21:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete POVFORK ("Benefits" is supposed to be neutral?). Material is already appropriately and well covered with proper reliable sources in other articles (cf. British_Raj). --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 22:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Renamed - "Positive legacy of British Colonial Rule and Imperialism in India". mrigthrishna (talk) 21:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry ... Still synthesis and still Original research. :) --Ragib (talk) 23:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Updated comment I noticed that the article has been moved a few times since the start of this AFD:
 * from Contributions attributed to British colonials and British Raj in modern India to
 * Benefits of British Colonial Rule in India to
 * Benefits of British Colonial Rule and Imperialism in India to
 * Contributions of British Colonial Rule and Imperialism in India to
 * Positive byproduct of British Colonial Rule and Imperialism in India.
 * Clearly these moves have done nothing to make the subject more encyclopedic or less POV, and illustrate the problem with such POV forking from existing articles (Company rule in India and British Raj) that handle the subject well. I could critique the bloated content, improper synthesis, quote mining, inadequate attribution, and use of 19th century primary sources (Karl Marx !) - but even if those issues didn't exist the subject would remain irremediably POV and in need of being deleted. PS: If the consensus of this discussion is to delete, the numerous redirects that have been created recently will need to be deleted too. Abecedare (talk) 03:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * DELETE Blatant WP:POVFORK, any of this that is notable should be covered in British India or Colonial India. And that ignores the bad WP:OR and sourcing problems this article still has. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 19:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * DELETE Unless I'm missing something, it seems like an obvious POV fork. —Preceding unsigned comment added by A Quest For Knowledge (talk • contribs) 19:16, 8 February 2010
 * DELETE -- POV, factual inaccurate/misleading ... generally useless article. Jrtayloriv (talk) 19:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as an irremediable POV fork from British Raj and Company rule in India. The various titles that the article has been moved to is testament to the fact that this is pure synthesis of opinions searching for a location. It can not be neutral, merging disjointed opinions anywhere is a bad idea. Clean articles exist at the two links above, and reliably sourced content belongs there. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  20:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:POVFORK. no more writing required i guess.  Arjun  024  21:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:SNOW. Speedy or prod these types of articles next time. Obviously not what we need. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete ...whatever the title might be right now. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 23:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Obvious bias in the name. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete POV fork. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Seems to be a POV fork.Slatersteven (talk) 16:52, 9 February 2010 (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.