Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devasena (character)


 * 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. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:39, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Devasena (character)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The character has little or no notability outside the film. None of the sources used in the article substantively talk about the character to establish its notability or to warrant a standalone article. This one clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:FICT. &mdash; Vensatry (talk) 06:32, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:














 * KEEP: Critics have praised her character and every single character in the film deserves its own article because the "Baahubali" brand is bigger and is notable enough to command an article. Just because she is getting all the attention in this film? Just because her characters evolves in the new installment? Still there is enough notability to keep the article. Krish |  Talk  06:37, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Additionally, if every Lost character can have an article, so can "Baahubali". The fandom is huge, the brand is biggest India has ever gotten introduced to and her character is very crucial for the entire series. Krish |  Talk  06:41, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Just because critics "praise" a character it automatically doesn't qualify to have an article over here. Please read the relevant guideline. &mdash; Vensatry (talk) 06:52, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I am going to have to side with Krish here. It might not be clear enough from his defensedefense, but atleast Devasana (and possibly the Baahubali (s)) have had enough independent commentary to warrant an article. This is a meaty commentary on the character's impact on a film industry's handling of women. More pieces here and here talks about the female characters of the film, in a manner you rarely see Indian film/television characters being talked about. As far as the popularity goes, the character has warranted merchandise sales as it says here, which again i think further helps establish notability. I am sure on further digging more notable commentary is bound to come up. It can establish notability, there are way less notable characters that have a page here. I am not saying that it justifies the creation of more articles, in any way but i do believe that as per the standards of notability, this very well satisfies it. Numerounovedant   Talk  16:18, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Just as a suggestion, it may be better to do individual nominations for these characters so that way users can provide links to support whether or not the individual article has enough notability to stay or not (I know that is a pain, but it might be the easiest way of doing this; mass nominations can be tricky. I have done one before and I have seen them done, but this case may be better with individual nominations if that makes sense). Take this suggestion with a great pinch of salt though as I am still relatively inexperienced on here. Aoba47 (talk) 17:02, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, that seems like the sensible thing to do, however, I am not sure if we're going to get any commentary at the individual pages at all. I am not underestimating anyone's interest here, but I just think a lot of unrelated conflicts have come up during the procesd already. That said, I think this article clearly has enough independent research to warrant an individual article. Can't say about the rest, and honestly I don't think I have the energy or the interest to play a part in any of the rulings, but I can say with some assurance that Vensatry might have misjudged this one. Numerounovedant   Talk  18:13, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment and that makes sense to me. Thank you for providing the sources for the primary article being put up for deletion. I would lean more towards keep based on your provided links/references. It is difficult for me to assess these articles as they are so outside of my knowledge/understanding as I am not familiar with Indian cinema at all so I do not want to make a misstep or misjudge anything. Aoba47 (talk) 18:36, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand your doubts, in cases like these even the editors well versed with the topic face trouble reaching a verdict. Still, thank you for your valuable time Aoba47, I am sure that it'll really help the reviewers reach a decision. Numerounovedant   Talk  19:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:08, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the sources. I'm afraid TNM isn't a reliable source. Besides, the site (and this particular author) is known to call out sexism in almost all newly released Tamil films. She analyses even the smallest of a misrepresented female character in the smallest film. Second, talking about the characters of a "blockbuster" film isn't a new thing as far as South Indian cinema is concerned. As a matter of fact, even the Dhansika character in Kabali was much talked about and "analysed" by a few critics. Good point about merchandising, but unfortunately Amrapali Jewels is the official jewelry designer for the film. So this is clearly a case of promotional stunt (for both the film and the store). To cite a few examples, we've had Gautami hairstyle (based on her character from a particular film), Kushboo Sari (again from various films of the actress) in the past. Going by that logic, practically we might end up with an article on almost every character of Rajinikanth in the last 1.5 decades or so. To sum up, the "prominence" of a fictional character cannot be determined overnight; we're looking for longtime significance. If WP were to exist in 1975, even an iconic character Gabbar Singh would not have passed WP:FICT overnight. &mdash; Vensatry (talk) 05:30, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Although I am not familiar with the trends of the South Indian cinema, the point that the prominence of a character cannot be judged overnight makes sense to me. Also justified are your comments regarding fandom, which can be a major problem if we proceed at the this rate. However, considering that I as someone unfamiliar with the South Indian cinema, having heard so much about the character (I am sorry, but I am totally clueless as to who any of the other (South Indian) characters you mention are), believe that a little more digging on the independent research on this particular character wouldn't hurt anyone. It'll also make sure that we don't miss out on any non-South Indian analytical piece. I reiterate that I am only offering a defense for Devasena and not the others. Thank you. Numerounovedant   Talk  05:44, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I beg to differ. If Imperator Furiosa and Nux can have their articles just after the release of the film (overnight), then I think these nominations are questionable. Like Furiosa, the female characters of Baahubali have created a huge debate (positive or negative it does not matter). Avanthika's character received massive backlash and 1000s of articles were dedicated to point out the miscogny of Baahubali and their relationship. And, Sivagami was another character which everyone praised and again it received massive coverage. It's just Devasena's main storyline was revealed in second part, which also has received huge press. And, don't even get me started on the male characters. They are huge too. Coming to Rajnikanth's characters, well, I am sure he can have a Chitti article arfter the release of Robot 2. I am sure it should have been created just after the release of the first part. Anyways, coming back to Baahubali, I would like to add that it has become a huge brand in India as has received massive attention of everyone. Each and every character deserves its own article. I am even surprised that the nominator even nominated the most popular characters of the film: Kattapa and Baahubali. Kattapa is already an iconic character, and millions of articles are dedicated to him. I am surprised that he didn't even think once before nominating his article. Krish |  Talk  07:59, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I would recommend providing links to these sources either here or putting them in the article to support your point. Also, please refrain from hyperbole during your argument. While it may be true that there are several articles out there about these character, I highly doubt that there are "millions" of articles (that have significant coverage from third-party, outside sources other than plot summary) as that can weaken your argument. Aoba47 (talk) 14:42, 5 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Unnotable film character and article in long term. - Varmapak ( talk ) 06:29, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 6 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Completely unnotable film character. — I B  [ Poke ] 14:35, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete all - outside of the film, absolutely no notability.  Onel 5969  TT me 12:13, 11 May 2017 (UTC)


 * 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.