Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plants in Meitei culture

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. Consensus for keep with the article needing improvement, but not deletion. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plants in Meitei culture[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)

Author's WP:SYNTHESIS PepperBeast (talk) 13:23, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India and Manipur. PepperBeast (talk) 13:23, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is tricky, because (1) there are precedents, e.g. Native American ethnobotany, and (2) this particular precedent exists because Native American culture is known for its great knowledge of, and sensitive use of, natural resources, of which plants are a major part. The question in my mind is whether the same applies to Meitei culture? If so, this article could be a reasonable sub-article from the main Meitei culture article? I note that the main article does have a section on "Relationship with nature" but I didn't check if it's by the same editor! It quotes the same story and poem. The main article is mostly an index into sub-articles on aspects of Meitei culture so I don't like the idea of merging the present article into Meitei culture, though parts could be merged into other sub-articles. The "religion" section of the main article is a bit of a mess, and is currently the dumping-ground for material closest to Plants in Meitei culture, so I'm concerned that merging this back would make it even worse. Elemimele (talk) 17:17, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on your comment. I'm not implacably opposed to ever having an article on this topic, but per my nom, this article is just a grab-bag of ideas. PepperBeast (talk) 19:34, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you've got a point. Maybe merging the importance-of-nature theme into the religion section of Meitei culture, the folklore paragraph into Meitei folklore, and the bits on plants used in rites and festivals into the matching festival? No objection if anyone produces a more coherent article in future. Elemimele (talk) 20:16, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at the main author's contribution history. It is infuriating. They are just spamming the site with "X in Meitei culture" articles about every object or concept X in the Universe. This is not at all a careful or thought out process like that which went into Native American ethnobotany; it is just the jobless behavior of a Meitei nationalist with too much time on their hands. Brusquedandelion (talk) 09:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Brusquedandelion: Don't accuse other editors of being "Meitei nationalists." This is the second time you've done this; it is pretty much a WP:PA. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 17:17, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's hardly an attack unless you think being a Meitei nationalist is inherently bad. This is just the sorts of behavior nationalists engage in; it's inductive reasoning, nothing more, and comes with no value judgement placed on Meitei nationalism. On the contrary I am actually quite sympathetic to Meitei nationalism, and generally agree with their political programme, insofar as it does not concern wasting the time of Wikipedia editors with inane fluff. Brusquedandelion (talk) 21:09, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to note here that Native American ethnobotany is a much narrower topic than Plants in Meitei culture. You could maybe make a case for titling the article Meitei ethnobotany (or similar), if multiple independent, reliable sources talk about that topic as such, but as it stands, as a WP:SYNTHesized grab bag of anything relating to plans and Meitei culture, there's just no comparison to something like Native American ethnobotany. Brusquedandelion (talk) 02:16, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and tell the main author to stop making articles like this. Brusquedandelion (talk) 09:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this one. Maybe delete one or two iffy sections, like the list of films named after plants, but overall this article has enough content to meet its stated purpose and theme. I'm guessing at this point that the WP:SYNTHESIS complaint made about this drafter's Metei culture articles is something along the lines of "This article's sections don't really go together well enough to be one article; the Wikiauthor synthesized the connection between these topics by treating them collectively instead of separately" and evaluated the article from that perspective. A snip here and a snip there and it's fixed, with enough left over. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:39, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How does a bit of snip snip solve WP: SYNTH problem when the whole article is synthesized? I was under the impression that per Wikipedia notability guidelines, you can't create an article that groups together a bunch of content under a single header unless independent sources have themselves grouped the same content under the same or a similar header. For example, there are plenty of independent sources that discuss Native American ethnobotany as such, in those same terms (mind you, that is already a much narrower topic than, say, Plants in Native American culture), but I can't find any covering Plants in Meitei culture. I do see some books specifically on Meitei ethnobotany, but again, that is much more specific than the current title of the article.

Also, if you think the topic Plants in Meitei culture merits an article under that title, than it is inconsistent to delete one or two iffy sections, like the list of films named after plants. Clearly a Meitei film is part of Meitei culture, and if it mentions plants, at all, in the title or elsewhere, it comes under the purview of such an article.

You can argue an article about X belongs on Wikipedia, or you can argue that an example of X does not belong on Wikipedia, but you can't simultaneously argue that an article about X should exist and yet somehow not cover something that is manifestly an example of X. Brusquedandelion (talk) 02:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the problems with these articles fall under WP:SYNTH per se. There's no conclusion drawn, no "and therefore C." I think this might be one of those times when the nom couldn't figure out what was bothering them about the article and picked the guideline that they felt came close enough (but I'll defer to PB on that). I think we're more in the territory of "Does this belong on Wikipedia?" which is a subjective matter of editorial discretion and not a bright-line rule or rules. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:05, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm relatively new to Wikipedia and upon further examination of the wording of WP:SYNTH I see your point (but I'm not the nominator, so I'll let them speak for themselves of course).

While the article is not a list article per se, in many ways it comes close to functioning similarly to a list article, in that it seems to aggregate theoretically disparate topics just because they fall into the intersection of "Meitei culture" and "plants." On this point, I think we can look to the following guidelines from WP:NLIST:

One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources

"Plants in Meitei culture" have not been discussed as a set, and don't really form a "natural category" of the sort that belongs on Wikipedia. Surely Wikipedia does not license creating articles titled "X in culture Y," for every culture Y and every thing or concept X. That doesn't seem to make much sense, does it? Brusquedandelion (talk) 08:33, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This, exactly. If there are independent, reliable sources on something like Meitei ethnobotany or plants in Meitei culture as such, that would be a reasonable indication that the topic is notable. Simply making a heap of items that involve both a plant and Manipur to is creation of an article through OR/synthesis, not real notability. PepperBeast (talk) 14:44, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so for this article to satisfy, we'd need sources that say "Plants in Metei Culture" is a thing.

First, let's look at the sources already provided.

1) I don't see any titles that specifically say "The Definitive Book of Plants in Metei Culture" etc, but I do see things like "A Handbook of Folklore Material of Northeast India" and "Oral Tradition and Folklore of Northeast India," either of which might have a chapter on plants. I don't have access to the book, but we could ping the drafter and ask.

Now let's look for sources not already in the article.

1) Midas Touch Manipur looks on the nose, but it's a blog.

2) Now I'll Google "Meitei ethnobotany." Oh, here we go: Ethnobotany ...Manipur Ethnobotanical survey Yeah, I'm getting lots of hits for this. Food plants, medicinal plants. This is just Google, not even Google Scholar. I think it's safe to say that "Plants in Meitei culture" is a thing.

3) Google Books gives us "Glimpses of Ethnobotany & Medicinal Plants of Manipur, N.E.," "Ethno Medicinal Plants of Manipur, North-East India: Thoubal," and so on. "The Cultural Heritage of Manipur" specifically has "plants in Manipur" in the preview.

The fact that those sources aren't in the article now might be an issue, but I'm very comfortable saying it puts it in the "tag and fix" column, not the "delete" column. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned earlier, you could maybe make the case for moving the article to Meitei ethnobotany, because I ran into the same sources- but you'd not only need to change the title of the page, you'd also need to substantially revise the content of the page, and take advantage of the sources you listed. Brusquedandelion (talk) 00:04, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not comment on the title at this time. As for content, I find it fine as it is. There is room for improvement, but I see no other issues that would make deletion preferable to retention.

I am starting to get the feeling that you just want these articles deleted, no matter which sources are found or how many concerns are assuaged. Sometimes I get that feeling when the other editor does have a reason, just not one they've said yet. Sometimes it's a "Well if they don't solve problem A, then I don't have to mention problem B" situation. We've solved problem A, so is there a B, even a subjective one? Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:20, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like I've made my reasons pretty clear at this point- unless multiple (or even one) RS's are discussing "Plants in Meitei culture" as a conjunct, it doesn't make sense to have such an article here. You brought up those books on ethnobotany, but that just isn't the same thing, and I had even noted that earlier, before you. Again, if the author wants to create or move the page to Meitei ethnobotany or similar, I would not really have an issue with this, but the current content of the article isn't about that at all, so it would require a rewrite.

I don't think you can introduce sources which discuss Meitei ethnobotany in support for the existence of an article titled "Plants in Meitei culture" and then when I suggest moving the article, simply declare that you do not comment on the title at this time. Articles are supposed to be about the subject indicated by their titles, and if said subject doesn't have independent coverage, it's besides the point that a related topic does have coverage, unless you want to suggest a move- but apparently that's not what you want to do! So it's totally fine if you don't want to discuss the matter of the article's title, but in that case the sources you offer are effectively irrelevant. It's one or the other.

I would also add that if I were really just trying to get this article deleted by any means necessary, for some secret covert reason, I would not have suggested the move (which I did after discussing the same sources as you, before anyone even mentioned a move as a possibility). This was a fundamentally conciliatiory gesture in the sense that it is meant to allow the original article author to salvage as much of their article as they can. Brusquedandelion (talk) 01:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : I don't mean to be confronting or offending anyone's decision. I see that you are worried about WP:SYNTHESIS. However, I believe that cultural elements of a particular X culture include folklores, religion, mythology, theatres, cinema, etc. of X. I don't think we have to find sources that mention that Meitei folklore is a part of Meitei culture. Inside the article, I don't provide anything unsourced or uncited. And all the sources are based on folklores, religion, mythology, theatres, cinema, etc. of Meitei. If the sources mention banyan, peepal, marigold, mustard, etc. in relation to Meitei speaking people alias Manipuri speaking people but not exactly the very wording "plants in Meitei culture", I don't think it means marigold isn't plant. I believe Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue. Besides, there are other similar articles such as Plants in Christian iconography. Everyone is welcomed to improve the article but total deletion is too harsh on this issue. --Haoreima (talk) 15:39, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Our objection isn't that the sources mention banyan, peepal, marigold, mustard, etc. in relation to Meitei speaking people without using the very wording "plants in Meitei culture". Our objection is more that all of the sources seem to fundamentally be about different things- about, as you note, folklores, religion, mythology, theatres, cinema, etc., and it is you, as the author, that has aggregated these things together just because they mention plants and are part of Meitei culture. If multiple reliable independent sources were discussing "plants in Meitei culture" as a unit, the situation would be different.

As it stands I think you have a chance of making a case for moving the article to Meitei ethnobotany, while dramatically reworking pretty much all of the content to use the sources that Darkfrog24 mentioned above, amongst others. Brusquedandelion (talk) 00:08, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are countless papers directly associated with the article's topic in different sources, like:

Sacred plant species of the Meitei community (from the ResearchGate)
Plants associated in forecasting and beliefs within the Meitei community (from the neist.csircentral.net, a scientific body of the Indian government)
wild edible plants used by meitei community of eastern himalayas, india (from bioinfopublication.org)
Some Antipyretic Ethno-medicinal Plants of Manipuri Community of Barak ... (from Southern Illinois University)
Vegetable dyes used by the Meitei community (from Council Of Scientific And Industrial Research–National Institute Of Science Communication and Policy Research)
And so on...

I believe we need not to find sources that say medicine, or cuisine, or crafts, of X community are parts of X culture. Haoreima (talk) 01:49, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

H, I would ask that you de-bold and indent your comment so that your (signed and attributed) post doesn't look like two different people ivoting, to readers who don't look closely enough. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, this article was accepted by the jury members of the Feminism and Folklore 2023 editathon, organized in English Wikipedia, as a part of their event. --Haoreima (talk) 01: 51, 13 February 2024 (UTC); Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:28, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]; Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:45, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- First of all, nom admits topic is notable when they say . I'm not implacably opposed to ever having an article on this topic, but per my nom, this article is just a grab-bag of ideas. AfD is famously not cleanup and if the subject is notable any synthesis probs with the current article should be fixed by ordinary editing. Secondly there are tons of sources for this topic so, as nom admits, it is notable. For instance: [1] [2] [3]. Central and Adams (talk) 03:34, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Please focus on addressing the issues of WP:SYNTH and the inherent notability of the topic itself, with regards to available sources, rather than how this particular version of the article is currently written.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 20:25, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Meitei culture: There's something here, but the article as it stands now isn't it. A few brief paragraphs and a poem. Either redirect or draft until it can be expanded into something more extensive. Oaktree b (talk) 00:23, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Based on the sources provided by Central and Adams, the article is both useful and interesting, making it a valuable addition to an encyclopedia like this. Rather than deletion, the article requires improvement. Thanks. 180.183.224.201 (talk) 20:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is consensus that this is an inherently notable topic with an article in need of cleanup. I agree with that consensus. The article merits improvements including the sources found by Central and Adams. Fagles (talk) 01:08, 12 March 2024 (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.