Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kuttichathan

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. As apparently nobody wants to pursue deletion further and the topic appears to meet inclusion criteria even if it is poorly written. A merger would need a separate discussion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:07, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kuttichathan[edit]

[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)

This article used to be pretty lengthy (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kuttichathan&oldid=908880868), but most of its constituent material seemed to be "a complete fabrication", so it was rewritten as a stub from scratch by User:Þjarkur. The problem is, in my opinion, this article is not notable enough for Wikipedia. Not only is it a one-paragraph stub, but all three of its sentences (yes, there are only three) are copied directly from an existing public domain source, namely:

Iyer, L. K. Ananthakrishna (1925). Lectures On Ethnography. pp. 197–198.

Þjarkur says that "that is how Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written, we reflect what sources have said", but he is referring to paraphrasing existing sources, not copying them directly. An article containing no original content is not suitable for this website. I'd PROD this again if possible, but site rules say I can't. Thoughts?

(Here is the page history: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kuttichathan&action=history) 𝕎𝕚𝕜𝕚𝕎𝕒𝕣𝕣𝕚𝕠𝕣𝟡𝟡𝟙𝟡 (talk) 11:32, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:36, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep we have many similar articles on mythological characters, demons, etc. They are often stubs because while the folklore about them may be extensive, there is little said about them in reliable sources. Some systems of folk belief may only ever have been studied once or twice by anthropologists so the sourcing will always be limited, but that's not a reason from excluding properly-referenced entries from the encyclopedia. Mccapra (talk) 11:39, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mccapra: You see, the problem isn't so much of a notability issue (i.e. I'm not requesting for it to be deleted just because it is not notable enough for Wikipedia). I also don't think this article belongs because all of its content is copied directly from an existing source. Even so, if you still don't think that it should be deleted as I do, I am not opposed to some sort of compromise, such as a merge. 𝕎𝕚𝕜𝕚𝕎𝕒𝕣𝕣𝕚𝕠𝕣𝟡𝟡𝟙𝟡 (talk) 12:45, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article is extended-confirmed protection, due to Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts. The protection was applied to the article before it was rewritten; perhaps the disruptive editing has something to do with the aforementioned fabrications? (@Uncle G, Deepfriedokra, MrOllie, and Arjayay: Please inform me on the full story of this; I'm not sure.) 𝕎𝕚𝕜𝕚𝕎𝕒𝕣𝕣𝕚𝕠𝕣𝟡𝟡𝟙𝟡 (talk) 18:01, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to say exactly because the disruptive editors weren't very communicative (or skilled in English), but it seems that there were some representatives (or maybe just followers) of a few different area temples who were edit warring about the details of the folklore, particularly about whose temple was the oldest around. - MrOllie (talk) 17:23, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@MrOllie: Is this what certain editors and warnings mean when they say "conflict of interest"? 𝕎𝕚𝕜𝕚𝕎𝕒𝕣𝕣𝕚𝕠𝕣𝟡𝟡𝟙𝟡 (talk) 18:02, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It would be fine to merge this article into a larger list of characters in Malabar folk religion, but that article does not currently exist. There's nothing wrong with having stub articles, this one is short but informative. There's also nothing wrong with directly copying content from public domain sources, we do it all the time and we're here to assemble an encyclopedia rather than to practise our college essay writing skills. – Thjarkur (talk) 13:04, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Added new entry for Requested Articles: Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Social_sciences/Religion#Other_specific_religions. 𝕎𝕚𝕜𝕚𝕎𝕒𝕣𝕣𝕚𝕠𝕣𝟡𝟡𝟙𝟡 (talk) 16:08, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A survey of sources, such as seen in the search links above indicates that the topic is notable. The rest is then a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion per WP:IMPERFECT – which states clearly that brief starts on a topic are welcome. See also WP:TLDR. Andrew D. (talk) 16:21, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Davidson: By keep, do you actually mean "keep", or are you fine with "a choice between 'keep' or 'merge'", like what Þjarkur has suggested above?^{[clarification needed]} 𝕎𝕚𝕜𝕚𝕎𝕒𝕣𝕣𝕚𝕠𝕣𝟡𝟡𝟙𝟡 (talk) 18:00, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The merge targets that people are talking about above don't exist and so are moot. The main issue here is deletion. Once we have settled that, future expansion of this and related topics is a matter of ordinary editing. AfD is not cleanup nor an article writing service. Andrew D. (talk) 19:14, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note Pinged here. Don't recall why it is protected. I see a lot pf protection requests, and I don't recall them all. It must have been impressive, 'cause I don't like extended confirmed, and I especially don't like it for this length of time. Now as to the deletion. If memory serves, we can quote heavily from a source if it is suitably licensed and attributed. If not suitably attributed it could be a copyvio, but that is remediable by proper attribution. (There's a template of some sort for this.) Depending on the source, it could argue for keep if it is an encyclopedia (for instance) or book or major work. Also, the size of an article is never an argument for deletion 'cause it may be expandable. Or it may the subject has been covered sufficiently. I would be reluctant to nominate for deletion in case there is a good version buried I the history that we can revert to. Having said all of that, no opinion on keep vs delete-- Deep fried okra 06:24, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There seems to be more similarly-named articles to "Kuttichathan" than I originally thought there would be. As such, I have created Kuttichathan (disambiguation) and Kuttichaathan (disambiguation). 𝕎𝕚𝕜𝕚𝕎𝕒𝕣𝕣𝕚𝕠𝕣𝟡𝟡𝟙𝟡 (talk) 12:47, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Thjarkur: Is the equivalent Malayalam article ([1]) a fabrication as well? 𝕎𝕚𝕜𝕚𝕎𝕒𝕣𝕣𝕚𝕠𝕣𝟡𝟡𝟙𝟡 (talk) 16:07, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's not necessarily a fabrication, but it's an article about Chathans (a group of several hundred demons) and not about Kuttichathan (who is a Chathan). Like with most subjects in mythology, they are notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia, they just need good sources. – Thjarkur (talk) 16:25, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Thjarkur: Thanks for explaining. Now, do we currently have an article on English Wikipedia about the Chathans? 𝕎𝕚𝕜𝕚𝕎𝕒𝕣𝕣𝕚𝕠𝕣𝟡𝟡𝟙𝟡 (talk) 16:52, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet. But that's not a problem for this discussion as Kuttichathan is independantly notable. – Thjarkur (talk) 13:30, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:41, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:41, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Are we continuing discussion over whether to delete this article or not, or have we all agreed to keep it? ωικιωαrrιorᑫᑫ1ᑫ 11:30, 28 October 2019 (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.