Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colonial preference

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 redirect to Imperial Preference. Tone 21:44, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Colonial preference

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 21:18, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Imperial Preference. Mccapra (talk) 22:27, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until resolution of other technical discussion The article was reverted back into existence by me pending the resolution of this discussion going on at the Imperial Preference talk on whether Colonial Preference is different from Imperial Preference. Let's not split the discussion into two separate places. Lollipoplollipoplollipop (talk) 23:46, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:40, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Imperial Preference. The article under discussion is a brief stub. The target is not a wholly satisfactory article in that it may be insufficiently general. The primary usage of both relates to the British Empire, but there may be other cases. The section on pre-20th century is inadequate: it was not related to "old subsidy" but to the Navigation Laws which excluded foreign vessels from British (originally English) colonial trades and required enumerated goods (of colonial production) to be landed in Britain (originally England) and to pay duty there. Alternative arrangements were presumably introduced when the Navigation Laws were repealed. The target article is tagged as being Canada-centric, but that is a matter of editing. If there is a difference, between imperial and colonial preference, the appropriate place for it to be expressed is in an article (such as the target) covering both. The distinction is largely one of period, as British colonies progressed to dominions and with the political changes of the Empire (now Commonwealth), resulting from Statute of Westminster. Attempts to split into the two are misconceived, even if there is a theoretical difference: the breakup of the British Empire was an evolutionary not revolutionary process. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:10, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Imperial Preference. Burroughs'10 (talk) 22:14, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested. Our readers are unlikely to care, and there are already citations available (See Talk:Imperial Preference). Bearian (talk) 19:35, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Imperial Preference. I have read the discussion on the talk page, but was unconvinced because of usage in reliable sources of both terms primarily w.r.t. the British Empire, as here:[1]. If there is a difference, Colonial preference should be deleted as it fails WP:WORDISSUBJECT. Yet my view is that any more general usage of the word is appropriate in the Imperial preference article, because that is where many readers would find it. Having reached that conclusion, I read Peterkingiron's analysis above, which makes the point better. In terms of answering a potential reader's information requirement, a redirect is required. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:03, 3 March 2020 (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.