Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cinema of Bengal

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 REDIRECT to Cinema of West Bengal. Spinning Spark 12:07, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cinema of Bengal[edit]

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

There is no precedent of classifying film industries by an undefined geographic area. The region "Bengal" has varied over centuries, this article talks about the pre-1947 region Bengal Presidency which comprises of the present day West Bengal and Bangladesh, both countries having separate film industries "Tollywood" and "Dallywood" respectively (equivalent wikipedia articles being Cinema of West Bengal and Cinema of Bangladesh). Solomon 7968 15:09, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Solomon 7968 15:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Solomon 7968 15:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think more needs to be taken into account than just this article to clean up what's going on here, because the Template:Cinema of Bengal complicates matters (it's really about the Cinema of West Bengal). So, I'd suggest doing the following: rename the template to Template:Cinema of West Bengal (unpiping the link in the title bar). Then, convert this page to a disambiguation between Cinema of West Bengal and Cinema of Bangladesh. redirect this article to Cinema of West Bengal and include a hatlink to Cinema of Bangladesh for the pre-partition film history of Dhaka. I considered the idea that the current article might need to be retained for pre-partition history, but at least on cursory inspection, it seems that everything before 1947 fits nicely into the article for one industry or the other. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The two contemporary film industries potentially share more than geographical proximity. They share a common language and pre-partition history. But I'll let editors with better knowledge of the subject and sources to weigh in before deciding whether this is enough justification to have a separate Cinema of Bengal article. Are there sources that cover the two industries (or Bengali language cinema) as one? Abecedare (talk) 16:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Abecedare ~~Ziaur Rahman apparently banned~~ Releasing of Indian films (Hindi & Bengali) in Bangladesh (except joint Indo-Bangladesh production) (see refs) is banned since 1972. The only recent joint production I am aware of is Moner Manush but the film article does not mention that. For the common language, the usual convention I think is not to group film Industries by language. For example Cinema of Austria and Cinema of Germany are separate articles although they share common language. Solomon 7968 16:20, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Indian films banned again in Bangladesh". Apr 27 2010. The Indian Express.
"Bangladesh retains Bollywood ban after protests". Apr 27 2010. The Guardian.

Typically, films-by-language are handled solely by category (Category:German-language films, for the above example). And indeed, we have Category:Bengali-language films here. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Those are good points. A one-off, or even a few, joint productions alone wouldn't justify a "Cinema of X+Y" article. And common language may or may not suffice. Basically as I see it, if there are good sources analyzing the two cinemas collectively, than we should have an article, else we should abstain from an on-wikipedia synthesis. For now, I'll sit back and listen to other comments, and revisit this afd in a few days. Abecedare (talk) 16:37, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there's some articles on cinema in other Indian languages, e.g. Malayalam cinema, Gujarati cinema, and other articles on regional cinema which may be in a particular language, e.g. Cinema of Andhra Pradesh which is "also known as Telugu cinema". So an article on film either in a language or in an Indian state would fit with existing patterns. However, Cinema of West Bengal already exists, so I don't see much point in keeping this. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Colapeninsula Unlike the other states of India Punjab and Bengal are unique because they were partitioned in 1947. So Cinema of Bengal≠Cinema of West Bengal. Solomon 7968 17:38, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:31, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even if it makes sense to merge the pre-partition material into the separate articles (and I don't know whether or not it does), we would want to keep (or at any rate not delete) this article for attribution. These editorial matters should be left for the editors of the various articles to sort out. The ancient history of Bengal need not concern us here. There is nothing in this article that requires the AfD axe to be swung. Thincat (talk) 15:49, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Thincat "Bengal" is an undefined place. This article talks about the British creation Bengal Presidency because back in "ancient history" there was no Cinema. For the "editorial matters should be left for the editors of the various articles to sort out", I am afraid that I don't understand that. Since you are not familiar this topic, just think about Cinema of Anglosphere or Cinema of Russosphere which will obviously be deleted as WP:SYNTHESIS. Solomon 7968 16:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you and your colleagues are sure that everything is covered satisfactorily in Cinema of West Bengal and Cinema of Bangladesh and nothing needs moving from Cinema of Bengal, the last could be deleted. But if anything is moved from Cinema of Bengal that requires attribution for copyright you will have to take one of several actions, the easiest of which is to convert it into a disambiguation page (which seems a good idea) or a redirect. Delete is not a good idea unless there really is nothing at all worthwhile that is not recorded elsewhere. Excuse me, I must just rush off now and read the article about the region of Bengal before it gets deleted :-) Thincat (talk) 18:00, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cinema of West Bengal. I looked for sources covering the "two cinemas" comprehensively and the best source that I could find is Bengali Cinema: 'An Other Nation', Sharmistha Gooptu, Routledge, whose central thesis is defining/discussing Bengali vs pan-Indian/Hindi cinema and which argues against cinema analysis through the lens of "national cinemas". However even this work says "While the provincial towns of East Bengal provided a market for films produced in Calcutta, there was as such no development of the film industry there until after the country's independence from colonial rule in 1947" and covers the cinema of East Bengal/East Pakistan/Bangladesh only perfunctorily. Several other sources also use "Cinema of Bengal/Bengali Cinema" to refer exclusively to the Calcutta centered film-industry in West Bengal, and the use of the term to cover the amalgam of West Bengal and Bangladesh based cinemas appears to be on-wiki synthesis. Note that while User:Squeamish Ossifrage proposal to convert the page into a disambiguation page for West Bengal/Bangladesh cinema appeals to my sense of fairness I didn't find any reference that refers to the latter as such. So my first preference is a redirect to Cinema of West Bengal but can support a disamb page as the second-best option. Abecedare (talk) 18:08, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, pretty much the only reason I had to lobby for disambiguation was the small amount of pre-partition cinema history in Dhaka (such as Sukumari), which was literally "cinema of Bengal" at the time. Upon reflection, there's a clear primary topic here, though, so I think a hatlink is the right approach rather than disambiguation, especially since few if any sources are explicit about that connection (the best we get from Sharmistha Gooptu is a footnote). I've revised my opinion above accordingly. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:31, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The suggestions for having a redirect strike me as very reasonable and nothing I have said should be taken as an objection to that happening. Thincat (talk) 19:16, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or make disambiguation page - I fail to understand the reason behind redirecting the article to Cinema of West Bengal as proposed by some editors here, since the cinemas produced in Bangladesh are mostly in Bengali language and the Bangladeshi cinemas are also referred to as "Bangla cinema" or "Bengali cinema", in fact, a google search on "Bangla cinema" shows results mostly referring to Bangladeshi cinema. Moreover, [1], [2] these 2 books also refer Bangladeshi cinema as "Bangla cinema".--Zayeem ^(talk) 15:20, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Kmzayeem Generally films are defined by nationality (not language). See my German-Austrian point above. Solomon 7968 19:36, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that's why I also proposed to make it a disambiguation page referring to both Cinema of Bangladesh and Cinema of West Bengal, but redirecting the article to Cinema of West Bengal seems to be absurd to me, as it refers to both film industries. --Zayeem ^(talk) 09:12, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:09, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cinema of West Bengal and create a hatnote to Cinema of Bangladesh. The pre-partition history can be included at those two articles, and if it becomes substantial at some point an article split can be considered if and when. Betty Logan (talk) 12:33, 20 November 2013 (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.