Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judicial reforms 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   delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:58, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Judicial reforms in India

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article was prodded, and the article creator removed the prod saying "Its an important topic, article need to be improved instead of deleting". The problem is, this article actually cannot be improved, because its entirely a POV--note that the very first line reads "Judiciary of India needs judicial reforms for speedy disposal of cases and ensuring accountability." This article exists to advocate for judicial reform, not to document it. Yes, it is conceivable that an article with this title might exist again in the future, but it wouldn't have any of the content. Until such time as someone wants to create such an article, this WP:NPOV and WP:OR article needs to be deleted. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Keep: This is one of the biggest social issue of present times in India. 1.21 billion people are being affected. Sometimes it takes life time to get justice in India. Search google http://www.google.co.in/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=Judicial+reforms+in+India to find the importance of the issue. You may improve the article or contents. Thanks. (Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 06:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)).
 * Comment: The only way to improve the article is to start over from the very beginning. There is nothing neutral in this article, and there is nothing that is documented other than a desire (on your part, and I am sure on the part of many Indians) for change.   That's an advocacy article, not a neutral WP article.  Qwyrxian (talk) 09:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * *Weak keep The first sentence of the article - Judiciary of India needs judicial reforms for speedy disposal of cases and ensuring accountability, totally changes the purpose of the article, if the reforms are needed then the title cannot be about the reforms in Indians Judiciary since they have not been done yet. A re-writing of the the article is warranted.CrossTempleJay 09:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete' This was intended as one of many POV forks.   Put relevant content in Judiciary of India.  No need for a merge, since there's nothing of value here.  Normally, we don't delete something that could be improved.  Maybe an article could work in this title.  However, User:Maheshkumaryadav has been creating a slew of POV forks, it's simply not possible to totally rewrite all of these into something fair and balanced.  It's best to simply delete them, and when somebody wants to write a new version, nothing stops them.  If we keep all this topic variances, we're going to have POV forks that are never cleaned up, because they lack the required community attention.  --142.59.100.126 (talk) 11:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - Original essay to advance a POV: India needs judicial reforms... Nothing to merge to Judiciary of India. This doesn't document an actual reform movement but rather advocates reform to solve an array of problems. Carrite (talk) 14:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Does not exist as an independent topic. Wikipedia should not be used to advance personal opinions and essays (the op-ed page of a newspaper is probably a better place). --rgpk (comment) 20:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:ESSAY. These are just views.--Sodabottle (talk) 05:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Upon going through the article a second time, I see a lot of things that it falls short of. Opinions are not encyclopedic. CrossTempleJay 09:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete or incubate subject to re-creation later per WP:CRYSTAL and/or WP:HAMMER - while everything may be true, it is not yet a notable political or legal issue. I'm sure it could be sourced later with bar association reports, editorials, cartoons, legal commentary, etc.  It's just such a mess that it can't be fixed in the next seven days. Bearian (talk) 00:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per the changes I made which remove the unreferenced and POV stuff. I think it is our refusal to try and trim the POV stuff from the articles which is getting in our way here. At the very least, now it looks like any of the various stubs we get that are unbalanced and incomplete, but somewhere to start from, Sadads (talk) 09:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep/ Merge with Judiciary of India Per Sadads. This is definitely within encyclopedic topic guidelines and I think has the potential to be a good article. Judiciary of India article is diabolical though, like most Indian topics.. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge with Judges Assets Bill (which i created a while ago). Judicial activism has been a cause for concern in India for a while and there has been attempts to reform Indian judiciary as can be seen by the Bill. i dont think it ever became law though. regardless, it is a notable topic. --CarTick (talk) 16:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as a POV essay. It also includes some copyvios, - Sitush (talk) 15:09, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - after I removed all the copyvios, the article was reduced to one line: "Recent journalism in India has been calling for judicial reforms in Judiciary of India to ensure speedy disposal of cases and accountability." Not really enough to merit an article. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 02:56, 14 May 2011 (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.