Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohna de gori kayina


 * 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. No quorum, that makes this a WP:SOFTDELETE Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:04, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Mohna de gori kayina

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Wikipedia is not a storybook. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 05:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Commment. Yikes. I'm not sure of notability, but this needs so much cleanup that it's almost obscene. Fairy tales, myths, and the like do sometimes have notability, especially cultural notability, so I'll see if I can find anything. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79
 * Neutral I can't find anything, not even with the parts that are in another language. The book listed is for another set of folktales entirely. The writing in the article is so vague that I can't tell if the stories are actual folktales or if they're something that someone wrote themselves that was based around real folktales.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79
 * Changing vote to neutral. I'm not really sure if there's anything out there, but I wouldn't mind trying to keep this article. If anyone can find sources to show this is a real folktale, I'm open to changing my vote from neutral to keep. I do think that there's a definite language barrier here since folk and fairy tales tend to go under multiple different names and spelling, not to mention that sometimes they're not always on the internet. Good job on cleanup by CC!Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79


 * Comment Helpful and perceptive comments by Tokyogirl79. Stories, including folktales and fairytales, can certainly have their own articles, see Little Red Riding Hood and indeed the long list in Grimms' Fairy Tales: List to know that it is quite possible to have an informative article on a story, complete with detailed 'Synopsis' of the story itself.
 * Also, Tokyogirl79's mention of cultural notability reminds us that we must be extremely careful of cultural bias: we are very much less familiar with Indian folktales, and there is no reason why there shouldn't be articles on them; and equally, we know it is much more difficult to source such articles, so caution is required.
 * In this article's favour, it already does have sources; it is fine to include summaries of stories, plots of books and plays (with primary sources only); and cleanup (like empty sections needing expansion) is not a reason for deletion.
 * Against, the article clearly needs better secondary sources; and it needs rebalancing so the synopses themselves form only a modest element of the article.
 * The dilemma would be resolved if anyone with expert knowledge of Indian folktales can help with sources. Help, anyone? Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * By the way, Chhail Batohi IS named in Chaube & Crooke on page 182, so the source is correct; and it is not surprising that different versions of the tales exist in a large subcontinent with rich oral traditions. Have done a little formatting, and removed the enormous "story" project, leaving the still-detailed "Plot". I'm inclining towards Keep. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. It looks like my college has an ebook version of the book "In quest of Indian folktales" available, so I'm going to try to get a copy and see what the folktale is called there. It might be worthwhile to rename everything and write it as described in the book. From what I've found through my college's library search, there appears to be enough scholarly reviews of the book itself to warrant an article about the book, so maybe a redirect to an article about the book that has a description of the fairy tale?Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 17:02, 27 February 2012 (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.