Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vijayanagar Metropolitian City

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. Catchpole 21:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vijayanagar Metropolitan City[edit]

Obvious Hoax. Pretty amusing to know that ancient cities in India were called "Metropolitan City" ! Google returned 872 hits, with almost all of them referring to Bangalore. The purported name is mentioned in only one book. Seems to be obvious Original Research. Delete as per WP:OR, WP:VAIN and WP:NON. Trish Kalakar 12:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)This was users first edit[reply]

Be careful before calling the work of others a hoax please. The person who marked this page for deletion is obviously not an avid reader of history. The concept of "Metropolitian City" is not a new one. Please read the book which I have referred to and you will see that the authors themselves call it "The Greater Metropolitian Region". The work has been reported by Carla M. Sinopoli and Kathleen D. Morrison. Instead of adding hasty tags, the reader should have been sensible enough to contact me and ask his questions and concerns. Perhaps request a rename of the page. Obviously this user must be novice at wikipedia. Please remove the tag immedietly before I bring in an admin.Dineshkannambadi 01:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More info on source for Vijayanagar Metropolitian City

Carla M. Sinopoli, 1993, Pots and Palaces: The Earthenware ceramics of the Noblemen's Quarter of Vijayanagara, New Delhi.
Kathleen D. Morrison, 1993,Supplying the City:The role of reservoirs in an Indian Urban Landscape, Asian Perspectives.

The work of these two scholars and several others at Vijayanagara lasted over a period of 20 years funded by various organizations including the Archaeological Survey of India, Karnataka Directorate of Archaeology amd Museums etc. The work in fact goes on as of today. The work done by many scholars has been put together into the book referenced on the concerned page by well known historians John Fritz and George Michell.

Google search!!! way to Go Trish Kalakar—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dineshkannambadi (talk • contribs) .

Keep - Vijayanagar and this page are two different things. WP:INCITIES Also the afd nominator made this as his first edit. I smell sockpuppetry.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely Strong Keep - This is ridiculous. The existence of metropolitan cities like Rome are never disputed but an Indian city comes up and immediate AfD? I smell more than just sockpuppety here. I smell some good old fashioned 19th century Indophobia. The cosmopolitan nature of the Vijaynagara Empire is well established by (guess what) western historians themselves.Hkelkar 05:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's nothing to do with Indophobia. The nominator is Indian. By the way, there is no article on Rome Metropolian City. utcursch | talk 07:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well given the self-hatred and negationism rampant in my country (I am also Indian) that doesn;t surprise me at all.Hkelkar 20:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I support renaming.Hkelkar 20:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

95 % of "Indophobes" live in India Doctor Bruno 13:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but Rename to something more appropriate. The city was not known as "Vijayanagar Metropolitan City". utcursch | talk 07:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - The Vijayanagara city was probably the New York of its times. It was the capital city of the empire which changed the course of history of entire South India. Without it, history of India and S India in particular would have been very very different. And it'd be a travesty of WP policies to even think of deleting this article. But like Utcursch says, maybe the title can be changed to something more intuitive. Sarvagnya 07:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 09:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename only keep if it is renamed to Vijayanagar or merge with Kingdom of Vijayanagar.Nothing more nothing less - raking up new names to add to percieved importance is a bad practice.TerryJ-Ho
I have no problem with renaming. Merging with main page would only lengthen the page further and readers may loose interest, especially since I am going for copy edit/FAC peer review shortly. What is the best choice? "Ancient City of Vijayanagara", "Imperial city of Vijayanagara", "Royal Vijayanagara", "Medieval Vijayanagara", "The Ancient capital of Vijayanagara Empire". Lets us not forget the Hampi, the religious/royal core of Vijayanagara is a UNESCO World Heritage Site. Suggest pleaseDineshkannambadi 12:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Rename useful article, but yeah, the name appears to be a WP:NEO. Vijayanagara is already such a large article that a fork article about the historic city is a good idea here. Dineshkannambadi suggested several good names that should be discussed on the talk page (I'm partial to "Ancient City of Vijayanagara"). I imagine there are more books than just the one referenced in the article that have covered the historic Imperial capital of Vijayanagara... it might be beneficial to see what other researchers have called it.--Isotope23 14:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - The article is not WP:OR. So, the reason itself for marking it Afd is not valid. While keeping this article after renaming is a good option, the current name is as good as the names suggested by Dineshkannambadi above. Also, this name is used in the published book by the researcher. Either way (rename or dont rename), that should be discussed in talk page of the article. - KNM ^Talk 17:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If only used in the one book it fails WP:NEO and probably shouldn't be used as the title for this article.--Isotope23 19:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong and Speedy Keep

This is NOT vanity. The city was there centuries ago
This is NOT original research. I can list 50 book on this topic if I go to Connemera
This was the capital city of an Emperor

Rename and remove the word Metropolitan Doctor Bruno 13:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Vijayanagara - This is a more popular name than "Vijayanagar metropolitan area." --Gurubrahma 18:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First of all, I'm very troubled by the nominator's opinion on the English translation of the Indian designation of "Metropolitan City." Maybe the nominator doesn't know it, but major cities existed in Asia and most other continents in historic times - even by Spanish accounts, Tenochtitlan (now Mexico City) was considered the largest city in the world in the 1500's - An excellent example of an ancient city being different than the contemporary successor. Secondly, there's enough unique information here to make a merge to Vijayanagara impractical as the latter's article would be too long. --Marriedtofilm 23:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely Strong Keep - User Utcurschji is opinion is thought provoking. The existence of metropolitan cities like Rome are never disputed but an Indian city comes up and immediate AfD? Why someone think that Indian cities are so much under-rated. I consider this AfD discussion as a humiliation towards Indians.Nileena joseph 14:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All what is mentioned is notable, and though the History section of the Vijayanagara article can do with more from this article, it is notable enough to stand on its own. In addition to it, I believe that the article might need a renaming if this is not the way it is referred to in references. BTW, this article was orphaned, so I added a link to it from the Vijayanagara article. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 14:07, 26 October 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.