Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indian renaming controversy (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus, default to keep. Sandstein 16:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indian renaming controversy[edit]

Factually inaccurate article, appears to have been more of an attempt at POV pushing than a legitimate article. The very first sentence is factually inaccurate The Indian renaming controversy is a result of a movement, it is not any "movement". Any useful information can be mentioned in List of renamed Indian public places. It is not an controversy after all, any opposition to the renaming should be mentioned in the main article, there is not need to create this POV fork solely serving to push a political agenda. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 04:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article says the congress started this in 2005. Which is not true, This started way way back in 1949 with the renaming of Ellore. Only recently with the renaming of Mumbai in 1995 did this trend pick up steam again. Clearly a POV. ChiragPatnaik (talk) 05:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, since this is a legitimate topic: it is indisputable that (a), some Indian cities have been renamed, and (b), this has provoked some controversy. While the article may be factually inaccurate and/or non-neutral in certain areas, those are arguments for improving it, not deleting it altogether. As for the claim that it's a POV fork: what of, exactly? I don't believe there's any other article on this topic already, beyond the list List of renamed Indian public places, which doesn't contain any mention of the political issues involved. Terraxos (talk) 06:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Your claim "this has provoked some controversy" is wrong. The article falsely portrays some opposition as controversy. The action may meet some opposition, and that can be mentioned in the article List of renamed Indian public places. There is no need for creating this POV article with a single paragraph. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 06:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: The article title itself is a prime candidate for WP:OR. There is no "movement" as the lead states. They were sporadic events with little to time them together (except maybe for copy-cat renames and me-too's). Full of errors . More of a rant than an encyclopaedic article. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 07:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ - with List of renamed Indian public places. No need for this separate article. BTW, most of these changes, if not controversial, are definitely not being used by majority of common people. Example: Brigade Road of Bangalore (very few people knows/uses the new name); Exception: M.G. Road of Bangalore (very few people knows/uses the old name). --GDibyendu (talk) 08:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Was looking into some reports on the country's research infrastructure recently (to rewrite the Pune article) and there definately is a movement in western India. Ottre (talk) 21:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I can agree with merger, but place focus on major international cities such as Mumbai, Calcutta and Bangalore. The problem with the list is it is too complete and it is hard to weed out important information from less-important information. However, on the flip side, while the article explains much better what has happened, it does not substantiate how the renamings are controversial or show that a movement is going on. -- Guroadrunner (talk) 12:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After looking into the comments by =Nichalp and Otolemur crassicaudatus, I agree with Cleanup + Move to alternate title. One suggested title: Renaming of Public places in India. This should concentrate on history of renaming places in India, including the fact that names of many places got changed in different times (Mughal India, British India etc.) - it may turn out to be an interesting article. Currently it is just focusing on renaming in Independent India, which is only part of the (hi)story. It may not be difficult to demonstrate related controversies of recent renaming 'moves' using newspaper references, but there is no point in trying to establish any 'movement' in it. That would be OR for sure. There is no public movement towards these renamings, its usually initiated by Politicians who get the idea endorsed by local celebrities/intellectuals, mainly writers of local language. Detailed list of renamed public places should be left to the list as it is now. --GDibyendu (talk) 10:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete present article. The name "Indian renaming controversy" is OR. The info can be merged or used in some other article.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 11:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and consider renaming as "... movement" and check for POV. If incomplete, expand. DGG (talk) 08:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I was almost about to mark Kolkata as a hoax article and move the article to Calcutta until I clicked the link to this article. We need to populate more articles with links to this and/or a similar list that talks about all the cities that have been renamed, as these are not the actual names of the cities that we grew up with. Guroadrunner (talk) 11:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve - This article contains useful information that should not be lost. -- 85.181.57.70 (talk) 15:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, improve, and possibly rename/move - it's not really a controversy, but although parts of the article are incorrect, there is a need for an article discussing the renaming of cities to pre-colonial names. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 03:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ -- adequate sources can be found by journalists and newspapers questioning the fad for renaming. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You missed the original point. First there is no movement like this as the article states. Second the fact presented as controversy is actually opposition, how exactly will you define controversy. The article can be moved to a new name like Renaming of cities in India, but the present version with the present title is simply an attempt to push a POV. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have a point. But an article needs to be present on wikipedia that details the renaming, reasons for renaming, controversial renamings, and public response. This information would be unsuited to be merged with a list. So I change to Cleanup + Move to alternate title =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete OR. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 04:30, 29 July 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.