Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/License Raj

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. I'll rename it as suggested. -Splash^talk 23:23, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] License Raj

I don't think the article is encyclopedic. 'Licence Raj' is more of a term coined by individuals than a phenomenon and the outcome of certain government possibilities. Not worth putting in a encyclopedia, maybe a dictionary...

--Gaurav Arora ^Talk 13:20, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep – popular term used to describe the pre-liberisation days. User:Nichalp/sg 17:35, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • It should be spelled licence User:Nichalp/sg 17:46, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup to make the article more encyclopedic. The subject seems notable enough, though the article is rather poorly written. Also, I'd suggest a name change to the British usage "licence" as has been suggested. If a request for cleanup goes unheaded, I'd say this should get another VfD.--Isotope23 19:07, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep A term that aptly describes the red-tape and regulations involved while doing business before 1990 in India. And there are similar articles, like the East Asian Tigers, Hindu rate of growth or the Celtic Tiger, which is a FA. I will try to cleanup and add more meat. pamri 16:37, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - with changes as suggested. I think over a period of time, the article will mature. --Bhadani 15:57, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep It is much more than being a mere word. It defines the economic situation and policies followed by India prior to 1991 liberisation. The article, though, is poorly written and hopefully it would mature over time as has been suggested by Bhadani.--Jodhbir 19:07, 14 September 2005 (IST)
• Keep It needs to be cleaned up and reworked, but the topic is necessary. If we can have articles on a whole lot of similar topics, why not this?--shash 21:09, 16 September 2005 (IST)

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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.