Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of renamed Indian public places


 * 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The result was withdrawn by nominator after renaming (to List of renamed Indian cities and states).Orlady (talk) 18:26, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

List of renamed Indian public places

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-encylopedic cross-categorization. Public places are periodically renamed. This is not notable. Every public place in India has probably been renamed a dozen times in its history. This list could eventually have millions of public places. Information about the renaming of a particular notable place (if the renaming was a notable event) should be included in the article for that place. This listcruft is not necessary. Snotty Wong  converse 22:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Question: How do you see this as a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization? Tavix | Talk  20:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Although I can't figure out how this is organized, even historic names that we've relied upon for years, like Calcutta, have changed relatively recently. When lots of renaming takes place in a short time, it's usually part of a campaign, such as in the Soviet Union, Congo-Kinshasa, China, etc.  Sure, it should be included in the article about the place as well, but we're not prohibited from mentioning something in more than one article.   Mandsford 01:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Public places is too generic. As the nom points out it has a million potential candidates. If we include roads and schools then it will become unmaintainable. My suggestion is to limit this to City/state level. or split into different lists for admin divisions/roads/institutions--Sodabottle (talk) 07:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep it is a good list. Should not be deleted but be developed and improved. Shyamsunder (talk) 10:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Move to "List of renamed Indian cities and states", and remove everything concerning individual roads/building etc, because otherwise, it's a WP:NOTDIR violation. Claritas § 11:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - The real question is whether or not the mere act of changing the name of a place is a notable enough event to warrant a list of all places that have undergone such an event. The only "List of renamed x" articles I have been able to find on WP are for cities which have been renamed, as Claritas has suggested above.    Snotty Wong   squeal 13:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Its nice list, give lots of info about old names, I really amazed to know about old names, we should keep and improve it.  KuwarOnline ''' Talk 15:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:ILIKEIT is not a reason to keep an article. The point is that this information has a place on Wikipedia, and that place is in the article for the particular place which was renamed.  We're not losing this information.  We're just debating whether or not it's necessary to have a list article which categorizes "public places" by whether or not they have been renamed.    Snotty Wong   converse 15:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Yes, I Understood WP:ILIKEIT, let me rephrase my answer. We should keep it as this(renaming) events were quiet notable, My suggestion is to make this list state and city level, just rename the current list to List of renamed Indian cities and states suggested by User:Claritas and improve accordingly.  KuwarOnline ''' Talk 16:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It should be kept and renamed like List of renamed places in the United States. Shyamsunder (talk) 16:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If we kept this article, renamed it List of renamed Indian cities and state, and removed all of the non-city/state information, how would you suggest reconciling this article with the existing Renaming of cities in India article? Surely we don't need both.    Snotty Wong   soliloquize 17:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, I see now that the other article (Renaming of cities in India) is valid. Anyway, I am agreeable to resolving this problem by renaming List of renamed Indian public places to List of renamed Indian cities and states and deleting the entire "Renamed places in Indian cities" section.  If there are no objections, I'll do that and withdraw my nomination.    Snotty Wong   babble 19:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Needs some cleaning up and references, but otherwise, very much an encyclopedic article. Rabbabodrool (talk) 18:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as a strong original research violation. Sure, things change names but that's not a reason to have a directory on everything that's changed it's name in India. Tavix | Talk  20:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep It is easy to find a source such as, India, which contains details of the renaming of places in India after the Raj. All these name changes, will by their nature, be well-covered in government and geographical works.  The rest is a matter of ordinary editing and deletion will not assist. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Withdraw nomination - I have moved the article to List of renamed Indian cities and states and cleaned it up by removing items that are not cities or states, per the above suggestions by multiple editors. This has cleaned up the article sufficiently to the point where deletion is no longer required. Nevermind, apparently someone is objecting.  In its current state and at its current location, this article should be deleted.    Snotty Wong   chat 22:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have restored the removed content and moved to the more general title List of renamed Indian places so that we do not make unwarranted assumptions about which renamings are worthy of listing. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:16, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There were no "unwarranted assumptions" made. The move I made was the opinion of multiple editors in this discussion.  I even announced my intentions to ensure there were no objections.  The move you made was unwarranted and against the consensus that was in the process of forming here.  Now, after this AfD ends, we're going to have to start a page move request and debate the same points over again, because your move is not revertable.  Your actions are quite disruptive, and some of the comments on your talk page imply that this is a common pattern in your behavior.    Snotty Wong   prattle 16:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep A very informative and useful list. Tovojolo (talk) 09:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.