Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of renamed things in Tamil Nadu

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. A talk-page consensus is probably more competent to decide whether this should be merged. Xoloz 19:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of renamed things in Tamil Nadu[edit]

This article seems to violate Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a directory. The article has a small introduction, then is just a list. It may be better served if merged into the Tamil Nadu article. Displaced Brit 05:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge then Delete The list is correct even if it is original research. I suspect most of the places article already reflect their British names. --Ageo020 05:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't think there's a strong reason to delete. 'No original research' doesn't mean that articles can't be about novel topics, or express information in a handy format, just that wikipedia is not the place to propose and discuss new inventions/theories. - Richardcavell 05:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article as it stands is original research and the inclusion criterion is so wide. Define something narrow, cite sources, and have the article. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 10:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete. Looks like important info, but I'd like to see some citations. Doesn't neccesarily need a completely independent article, though. --Gau 14:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per User:Richardcavell. If it must be deleted, it should be merged into List of renamed Indian public places (which is effectively a sub-page of Indian renaming controversy), and linked from Tamil Nadu. But I'd suggest there's no real reason not to keep it. As User:Richardcavell mentioned, No original research doesn't mean Wikipedia isn't a place for information to be collated when it's never been collated as such before; that would defeat the object of an encyclopædia in the first place. — OwenBlacker 16:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Historical toponymy is notable and encyclopedic. As for not being referenced -- apart from the vast majority of articles on WP not being referenced -- put in the {{fact}} tag where appropriate. Carlossuarez46 21:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and Keep- Many places were given a different by the British. Mostly it was for easy pronounciation. After independence, over 6 decades the names have been slowly changed. There are some historical anecdotes also. It will be better to rename the title as British names of landmarks in Tamil Nadu and write a brief history. Or the alternative will be include other similar instances like Trivandrum and Thiruvananthapuram, Mumbai and Bombay etcDoctor Bruno 14:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep bad-faith nom. --CFIF (talk to me) 01:35, 13 August 2006 (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.