Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hindu mythological and devotional cinema

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 delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu mythological and devotional cinema

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:POVFUNNEL: That era also had films from other religions, as well as folklores. WP:CONTENTFORK as it can be incorporated in Cinema of India, also forks the genre Mythological film / Fantasy film. Hardly satisfies WP:GNG. Fight Island (talk) 18:48, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Film, Religion, and India. Fight Island (talk) 18:48, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge As there seems to be a book about the subject, it seems likely that this can support a stand-alone article. I don't see the WP:POVFUNNEL argument, as the article does not claim that it is about an era of film, but rather a significant topical sub-section of the era before 1923 and beyond. In its current form we only have stub, though, so I have no problem if the majority prefers to merge the current content to a suitable broader topic and only split it out again in case someone adds enough content. Daranios (talk) 18:59, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Daranios, there's no "book about the subject", there's mention in pages 303–305. Currently, parent article Cinema of India does not have a section dedicated to it or mention of it in History section. Standalone sub-topic article is odd.--2409:4073:118:6B79:20EB:9C1C:FC4C:251F (talk) 10:11, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The cited review of Deities & Devotees suggests that that book is at least to a large part about the subject. Or did I get that wrong? The same review also calls out Filming the Gods by Rachel Dwyer and the Encyclopaedia of Indian Cinema as further sources on the topic. Daranios (talk) 19:31, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I agree that if this is kept there should be a corresponding sub-section added to Cinema of India, presumably at "Genres and styles". But the fact that there is not such section yet should not be a reason to delete this article. Daranios (talk) 19:47, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~: And perhaps rename to either Hindu mythological cinema or Puranic cinema, as many non-secular religious zealots treat these films as fact-based. Also because devotional films are largely different, e.g.: Palayathu Amman is not a mythological as it is set in present day, but devotion to a god plays a prominent role in the story. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:20, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now I vote to delete. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:46, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note: We don't normally create separate articles for subgenres, such as Arabian mythological film, Norse mythological film, Slavic mythological film, African mythological film, Celtic mythological film, Persian mythological film etc. It's all mythology. Even mythological film don't have a separate article. But we have Norse mythology in popular culture, may be Hindu mythology in popular culture is a broader and better option. Fight Island (talk) 14:56, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fight Island: I think there are two differences between our article and your examples. On the one hand I imagine that there are more Hindu mythological films than for the other mythologies. On the other, the one cinema is rooted in a major living religion, which is not the case for the others. Whatever we as authors may think of these mythologies, in the one case scholars of religion can and have analyzed the reactions of the believers to the films, in the other cases not (so much). A closer comparison would be between Hindu devotional cinema and Christian cinema, which does have an article, more or less. More importantly, I think we don't normally make a program beforehand what subarticles we create or don't create. Rather, it depends if there are secondary sources, especially scholarly ones, which can support an encyclopedic article or not. That's what WP:GNG is all about, and that should be the critereon here, too - while still respecting WP:CONTENTFORK and WP:NPOV, of course. If we have enough secondary material, let's have a Hindu mythological cinema article. If we have enough for a Norse mythological film, let's have that one, too. One does not depend on the existence of the other, that would be a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS kind of argument. Daranios (talk) 18:31, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Content forking is content forking. As already told, even mythological film has no separate article. GNG is not a guarantee for inclusion, not to mention it hardly satisfies here, as GNG requires "significant coverage" in "independent sources" specifically discussing "Hindu mythological film" as an independent genre as the book claims (not the broader Indian mythological film). I see only two sources on the article and can't find any on the web. Contrary to what you accused, other stuff does not exists here.--Fight Island (talk) 15:17, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fight Island: "Content forking is content forking." Sure, so why are we leading a deletion discussion here, not a merge discussion? You are arguing mostly based on the current state of the article. That, however, is not the decisive factor according to the notability guideline. The question is are there enough secondary sources so that we could write a reasonable encyclopedia article on our specific topic here, or only enough to support a paragraph in a larger article. This should have been determined by a WP:BEFORE search preceding a nomination for deletion. So did you check out the three books I've mentioned, and how substantial the content of the three pages from Explorations in New Cinema History actually is?

As for "other stuff does not exists here", that essay says we should avoid the argument "We do not have an article on y, so we should not have an article on this.", which seems to be pretty much what you are saying with reference to mythological films in general. The existence of this article in no way hinders the creation of such a parent article. Daranios (talk) 18:41, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: due to WP:POVFUNNEL. This is a subtopic best covered in a larger article as suggested by the nominator. Venkat TL (talk) 16:15, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mythology and Hinduism. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 23:40, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:40, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it is WP:POVFUNNEL, and lacks sources desperately. It can be merged with Cinema of India, but carefully since Indian cinema was nowhere and never divided per ethnicity, there is no theory of cinema that makes such distinction in any significant manner. Redirect could be left, but I would prefer not as it could potentially feed into more ethno-nationalism.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 07:30, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Santasa99, thank you for saying that. Although I have already !voted, so I am making this additional note that I do not suggest keeping the redirect due to above reason. I stand with my delete opinion. Venkat TL (talk) 07:33, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I have added content about both genres (Hindu mythological and devotional) to List of genres, this article may be deleted. --Kailash29792 (talk) 10:35, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kailash29792 This is not the right way to !Vote. see Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Recommendations_and_outcomes. You did not strike out your previous Keep !vote comment or any other comment. And why are you indenting as if you are responding to my comment? Venkat TL (talk) 10:42, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I intended to strike it out, but I thought one cannot edit their own comments. Now I'll do it. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:45, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kailash29792 ok. I still did not understand why you decided to indent your comment as a reply to @Santasa99 and my comment. It is unrelated. Please strike it and make a fresh comment below with one bullet point as indentation. The present comment is confusing as it is not related to the 2 comments before yours. Venkat TL (talk) 11:04, 17 October 2022 (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.