Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Impacts of Colonialism 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 no consensus. There is clear consensus that editorial action is needed, but no consensus that deletion is the necessary action. Kubigula (talk) 04:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Impacts of Colonialism in India

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Essay. Maybe suitable for a school assignment, but not an encyclopedia. Contested PROD. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 15:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with the nominator, this really isn't suitable as it stands--so Delete for now. It seems like a notable topic, but would perhaps be better suited as a subsection of the (surprisingly small) article on Colonial India. This looks like the first action of a new account, so I suggest the creator familiarize him/herself with our rules and convert his/her sandbox draft to encyclopedia style. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - This is someone's essay; nothing more. The topic may well be notable, but it would require a fundamental rewrite to bring it anywhere near Wikipedia's standards (though I would welcome any such attempts). ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment The fact that it is clearly of poor quality does not mean it should be deleted. There is no doubt that it meets WP:GNG, so what it needs is a major upheaval. Bzweebl (talk) 23:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep for now -- Some of the content is accurate, though unpalateable to me as an Englishman. The article needs a lot of work, for example providing in-line citations.  I suspect that a better title would be Economic impact of colonialism in India.  It may be that we need to end off merging this with soemthing else, but we certainly should not be deleting this out of hand.  A quick look at what is available such as Company rule in India indiscates that most of what we have in WP is about political, rather than economic history.  Colonial India refers to all Western colonisers, whereas the issue here is largely about British colonialism, and the negative impact of the British industrial revolutiuon.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. The article's subject is certainly notable, references to create a good article about this theme surely exist, and AFD is not for cleanup. Cavarrone (talk) 11:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Rename and Keep The article, as its stands, is POV because British rule had both positive and negative effects. Making a list of only the negative side of the British Rule will make this article unencyclopedic, violation of NPOV, and a hotbed of NPOV disputes. So rename it to Impact of British rule in India and include both the positive and negative legacy of the British rule. -- Supernova Explosion   Talk  12:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not sure that title would do. The British were evenually the dominant colonial power, but they were not the only one.  Peterkingiron (talk) 14:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete as newly created content fork of both Colonial India and Company rule in India. There's no reason to have a poorly cited essay in addition to two better-cited articles covering the same portion of Indian history. Impact fits neatly into both of these long standing pages. If any material can be merged, no objections so long as citations are applied. BusterD (talk) 23:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Needs further  and more exact sourcing, as well as some input from other editors, but actually a more readable article than our others.  DGG ( talk ) 04:16, 3 March 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.