Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indian renaming controversy

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. And if you want to merge articles, you don't need to go through this process. —Kurykh 00:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indian renaming controversy[edit]

The article fails to convince that there is a notable general controversy on this issue. In fact, the article hardly talks of any controversy at all, except a hint of it in the case of Bombay (which does not justify the general name "Indian renaming controversy"). With no loss of information, this could apparently be added (i.e., merged) to List of renamed Indian public places. Unless we are convinced that there was a notable controversy (not just a few sporadic editorial articles) on the issue worthy of having an encyclopedia entry, this should be deleted. deeptrivia (talk) 08:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any useful sourced content to City renaming (which in itself needs cleanup and reads like a list of trivia, and does not read like an article with clearly set out paragraphs within sections). You're right in that it doesn't assert that there is a notable controversy, but this is quite a complex AfD and it's quite possible that the controversy surrounding the renaming is notable, but that remains to be proven - most sources just seem to be about the renamings, not the controversy. Article reads like a load of original research in places, and indeed it may not be totally neutral or factual.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 09:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : This Article is totally OR and should be deleted.Bharatveer 09:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, possibley Merge : This article is notable in that the renamings aren't properly explained elsewhere. If we could merge the article into one or more that deal with the same thing I'd support it -MichiganCharms 18:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and/or Redirect. The links cited indicate that there has been a controversy, as one might expect in a nation of one billion people; why this isn't in the main article appears to be poor writing that is now fixed to be "less poor writing" (I've also edited to water down what looks like a pro-change POV). Perhaps the controversy merits only a paragraph or two, in which case it should be info added to the List of renamed Indian public places (<--- something else that needs to be "renamed") Mandsford 18:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Groggy Dice T | C 20:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Being familiar with the old names, I find the story behind the recent renaming wave interesting. Perhaps in a generation, people who have grown up knowing only the new names will find this an obscure topic, but to me, it's notable. Since part of the argument is over whether there is a notable controversy, perhaps a rename(!) to something like "Indian renaming drive" or "renaming push" would help. Then there would be no POV presumption that the renaming has been controversial. --Groggy Dice T | C 20:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't provide evidence of an organized, concerted, "naming drive" either. These renamings, (which have very justifiably been criticized by many), are events that are mostly independent of each other, carried out by all kinds of political parties sporadically over the last 60 years. The article has some good information that needs to be salvaged, but preferably not in the form of the present article. The least we could do is to choose a more appropriate name, but "Indian renaming drive" doesn't look very promising to me. PS: Even Indian renaming controversies would be better. deeptrivia (talk) 21:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Just because there's a section that doesnt approve of something, doesnt mean it becomes a "controversy"! Sarvagnya 01:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge non-OR content to List of renamed Indian public places and Delete. utcursch | talk 06:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and then Delete per User:Utcursch. At the least, the article name is highly misleading. There is no such controversy on "Indian renaming"! - KNM ^Talk 15:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is a story behind the renamings - certainly it was controversial for many people. John Smith's 21:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep That there is a controversy (or controversies) is undeniable, and not only in India but also in the context of other languages. Gabbhh 21:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Possibly rename to something without "controversy."--Sefringle^Talk 05:24, 13 July 2007 (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.