Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Macaulayism


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 01:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Macaulayism

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Deletion proposed per NOTDICDEF, WP:NOTADVOCATE, WP:GNG.

Neologism which, as a cursory Google search will show, is only used in a few dubious texts. There is no evidence that the word is used by mainstream scholars. Recent scholar works about Lord Macaulay never mention the term, which makes the existence of the concept highly questionable. -Atchom 06:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Keep after Carrite's excellent rewrite - Change the title to something like "Macaulay education policy"?. This article has OR/NPOV issues, but the subject itself is notable. Macaulay is a favourite whipping boy for Indians across the ideological spectrum. There have been a lot of material covering this particular point (In India, you don't write a book or article about our education system without bringing in Macaulay and giving him a few whacks)--Sodabottle (talk) 04:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep It is not accurate to call a term which has been in common use for at least 150 years a "neologism'.  A Google Books search shows that the term has been discussed in depth by many authors of many political persuasions in many contexts.  For example, George Bernard Shaw used the term.  To call all of these books and journals "dubious texts" is a stretch, in my opinion.  That being said, the article in its present state needs work, but should be improved through normal editing rather than being deleted.  Cullen328 (talk) 02:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge into Education in India which does not currently even mention Macaulay's name. The current content seems too polemic and so need not be retained. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Though the article can use some improvement, it is an appropriate discussion of a notable concept. Since the phrase itself is used pejoratively by historians and commentators to describe an attitude towards India, the criticism that it the article itself is not neutral is problematic. Its like saying that an article on "Racism" shouldn't exist because it appears to report mainly negative views of the subject.Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge I rarely think merge is a good option to suggest (because someone has to do it and do it sensitively) but in this case it really does seem the best solution. I think some material should be kept, but not all that is in the present article, and it would fit appropriately into the section Colonel Warden suggests. Otherwise keep. It is not a neologism or a dictionary definition and there is something by way of relevant citation. Thincat (talk) 18:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC) (see below)
 * Keep as an encyclopedia-worthy topic. This is an excruciatingly bad original essay, I'll see if I can punch it into shape with an hour or two of work here. Carrite (talk) 17:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm half through with the rewrite... With respect to the deletion debate, see this 1975 article title from the juried academic journal Asian Survey: "The Intellectual Climate of India Today: The Challenge to Macaulayism." This is clearly NOT a neologism, but is a term used in scholarly debate by specialists in the history of India. Carrite (talk) 19:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, with regard to the erroneous claim in this AfD nomination that "there is no evidence that the word is used by mainstream scholars," SEE THE TITLE OF PART V of the book British Orientalism and the Bengal Renaissance: The Dynamics of Indian Modernization, 1773-1835, published by the University of California Press in 1969: "Macaulayism and the Decline and Fall of the Orientalist Movement 1828-1835." It seems patently clear that this is a scholarly topic suitable for encyclopedic coverage, POV issues of the previous version of the article notwithstanding. Carrite (talk) 19:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Rewrite is complete, please take a look at it again, Merge voters. It's not perfect, god knows, but there's no reason that a specialist can't take the ball from here. Carrite (talk) 20:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep changing my tentative merge struck through above. Carrite has now created a really worthwhile article which is definitely worth keeping. I really do not like it when articles are sent to AfD to provoke people into improving them. I realise this was not the motivation behind this nomination but it does show what can be done with constructive effort. How much better than trying to think up reasons why a rather poor article should be deleted. Thincat (talk) 12:19, 18 March 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.