Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marabar Caves

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. (non-admin closure) Eternal Shadow Talk 16:49, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marabar Caves

[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)

Not seeing how this justifies a separate article from A Passage to India, the whole article is just an extended plot summary Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:36, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:36, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:36, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:36, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see that this could readily redirect to Barabar Caves - the movie itself incidentally was shot in southern India - Savandurga and Ramanagaram. Shyamal (talk) 09:01, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect. Fails GNG. Redirect if the term is mention in another article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:37, 28 June 2021 (UTC) PS. Changing to weak keep after reviewing sources from A&H below. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:36, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Admittedly a bit unusual for a fictional setting, but there's a lot of coverage in reliable sources: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], and that's just from the first page of Google Scholar results. The article could be rewritten to focus more on these critical debates and a lot less on the plot summary, but it's a notable topic. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:12, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Arms & Hearts Can you provide evidence of SIGCOV that goes beyond google hits? I've looked at the first paper (HOLLINGSWORTH 1962) and while it uses the name of this location in the title, it contains no discussion of it - just two or three mentions in passing. It is not uncommon for an entity to be mentioned here and there while not being notable due to nobody bothering to actually discuss it. Arguably the second (Clubb 1963) has some SIGCOV ("The importance of the Marabar Caves is indicated by the emphasis given them in the opening chapter... the Marabar Caves are modeled on those of the Barabar Hills near Gaya... The ultimate mystery of the Marabar Caves, the mystery behind the existence of conscious spirit in the universe, is beyond the powers of the human intellect to solve"), as does the third (Shahane 1985: "The vast spaces and immensities of the landscape of the Marabar caves only reinforce the Zen Buddhist concept of space"), so I am changing my vote to Weak keep. But it would be much easier if you were to provide your analysis of the sources here instead of just google hits, and when your list of sources starts with a source that is shown to be irrelevant it weakness people's motivation to review the subsequent ones. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:36, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Piotrus: I'm not sure Hollingsworth 1962 is as irrelevant if you think. It's true that if you search the text for "Marabar caves" only a handful of mentions come up, but that's because the author tends to use the more natural "the caves" to refer to the location instead. The purpose of the article is fairly clearly laid out in the first paragraph as offering an interpretation of the symbolism of the caves. I haven't read the entirety of all the papers I linked (for lack of time and because I'd like to read the novel one day and don't want to spoil it for myself) but avoided linking any that didn't seem likely to contain substantial discussion, based on abstracts or introductory paragraphs. It's possible I'm wrong on one or two, but in that fairly unlikely turn of events we'd still be left with five or six peer-reviewed scholarly articles published over the course of decades, i.e. very good evidence for significant coverage. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 09:01, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Arms & Hearts, Fair enough. And in case it wasn't clear, I do want to thank you for finding sources for rescuing that. We, the Wikipedians, too often have a habit of saying "you could have done it better" without saying "thanks for doing something in the first place" :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:19, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Arms & Hearts.4meter4 (talk) 04:51, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:21, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the article needs cleanup and citations but the subject itself appears to be notable looking at the references provided by Arms & Hearts. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 06:53, 13 July 2021 (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.