Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British-India Holocaust

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. PhilKnight (talk) 16:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

British-India Holocaust

British-India Holocaust (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Biased violation of

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Oppression of Indian people during colonial era is definitely worthy topic to have an article, an encyclopedic article without soapboxing like in this case. We have enough "Allegations of apartheid" non-sense already, and there is need to start "Allegations of Holocaust" tradition

• Delete, inherent violation of
  talk) 19:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete This article's title is not compatible with
  WP:NPOV. The contents are also non-neutrally written. Apart from the references, which might be added to a different article covering this period of Indian history, there's nothing encyclopaedic that can really be rescued from this article. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect to
  Great Famine of 1876–78. The article itself is too emotional, and not enough sourced, to be kept. Mandsford (talk) 21:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete This is best covered in
  Great Famine of 1876–78. I've said before and I will say again it's bad to have 2+ versions of an article, one with a neutral title for an event and another that is a POV. Every time the neutral title version has a shot at neutrality while the POV titled one exists for POV purposes. Let's just have one article, and improve it. --Rividian (talk) 23:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete As the article is a POV fork of
  talk) 02:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy delete: Let see , clearly fails
  WP:OR. gcount for "British-India Holocaust" gives only 7 links(1 to this AFD; 1to this article:Late Victorian Holocaust also under AFDWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Late Victorian Holocaust; rest are videos). --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 04:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as per D'Souza, everyone else. Edward321 (talk) 14:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per everyone else. Violation of
  WP:NPOV. Lehoiberri (talk) 20:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong Delete and Salt -- the topic is adequately covered in
  Great Famine of 1876–78. It is possible that British governors were misguided in their policies, and may have adopted harsh policies on famine relief for finacnial reasons, but I cannot believe that they deliberately cause a famine, let alone a genocide or holocaust. This is a POV article, lacking the NPOV required by WP. Modern newspaper articles are virually useless as a historical source for events of a century or more before, and must be disregarded. This leaves one source cited as University of Wisconsin, but it is not clear if this is a book, a research paper or a student essay. On an emotive issue such as this reliable sources ought to be from peer-reviewed journals or books from academic publihsers. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom.--Yopie 03:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-neutral, neologism, POV fork of Great Famine of 1876–78.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article uses a source identified as "How Britain Denies its Holocausts, Why do so few people know about the atrocities of empire? By George Monbiot. Published in the Guardian 27th December 2005". I have looked for this article, including in the Guardian's archive, and I have determined that it does not exist. George Monbiot only published one article in the Guardian that day, and it was called "The Turks haven't learned the British way of denying past atrocities" [1]. It does argue the famine in India was caused by the British, but nowhere does it assert that the famine was a "Holocaust". I say this because the creator of the British-India Holocaust article is using this Guardian piece to try and ensure the British-India article is kept up, and I don't want people to be mislead by a source that has been manipulated, it would seem, by the creator to push his POV. As a result, I have tried to remove the mentioning of the false Guardian piece in the British-India article. However, the creator of the B-I article has reversed my removal on the two occassions I have tried to do so, and the creator has not offered any reasonable explanation why. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 22:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I believe the article should be deleted for several reasons. Firstly, 'British-India Holocaust' is a neologism that breaks
  Great Famine of 1876–78, and duplicates of the same subject should not be allowed. I believe the Great Famine of 1876–78 article should be kept at the expense of the British-India Holocaust article, because the Great Famine of 1876–78 one is much more balanced. If the sources used in the B-I article can be verified, I will consider advocating a merge between the B-I and the Great Famine of 1876–78 article. Until that happens, I believe Delete is the appropriate action to be taken against the B-I article. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 10:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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.