Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Indian film industry


 * 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   no consensus. T. Canens (talk) 16:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

South Indian film industry

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  Cliff  Smith 17:49, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  Cliff  Smith 17:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  Cliff  Smith 17:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

There are articles on Tamil cinema, Telugu cinema, Kannada cinema and Malayalam cinema. This article just borrows text from all four and presents a product with an unofficial and highly vague title which is barely mentioned in any sources. Plus, the creator has been blocked as a sockpuppet of another editor. Secret of success (talk) 15:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Despite the article's history, I see no problem with a well-sourced article offering an overview of the Tamil cinema, Telugu cinema, Kannada cinema and Malayalam cinema industries... and readers are always welcome to vist the individual articles.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but the overview could very well be presented in Cinema of India. If there is South Indian film industry, there must also be provision for 'North Indian film industry' and 'East Indian film industry'. But these terms are never used by people and highly vague. There is no common meaning for the term and the industries, whenever referred to, are done so separately. Secret of success (talk) 12:51, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep There is indeed a lot of scope for this article to mention about the commonalities of the four cine industries which could not be included in the individual articles. But, right now, the article is heavily biased towards tamil cinema. -- Anbu121 ( talk me ) 18:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you clarify what in "common" can be mentioned for an encyclopedic article to stay, as you claim? Secret of success (talk) 15:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: I think the article can only be collection of these 4 articles or turn into original research trying to find commonalities in these 4 cinemas. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 09:01, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Nothing but original research and WP:SYNTH from a POV pushing sockmaster peddling his wares on language through this article now. I believe we are an encyclopaedia, therefore, this is not the place for such articles. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  20:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If the information is taken directly from Tamil cinema, Telugu cinema, Kannada cinema and Malayalam cinema, but is SYNTH and OR or POV, then those other articles must be guilty of SYNTH, OR, and POV as well. Should they all be deleted as well? or shall we propose all be merged (as User:Secret of success suggests above) into Cinema of India? I believe we do have sourcing for an article titled "South Indian film industry", specially as we do have numerous reliable sources which refer to it precidely as that... "South Indian film industry".  As well as sources for a possible article describing the North Indian film industry. Just sayin. Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:50, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * And I'm sure "The Madras presidency was divided into linguistic States, known today as Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala and Tamil Nadu. The division marked the beginning of a new era in South Indian cinema. Cinema was celebrated regionally and exclusively in the language of the respective State." is an exceptionally well sourced statement, along with the many others like this. Given that it's on Wikipedia, that statement must be correct. Just sayin, Michael. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  03:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As per the West India article, Mumbai, the city where Bollywood is based is a part of it. In that case, Bollywood falls under the 'West Indian film industry' but till now no one has used the term to describe. As Mumbai is not a part of North India, Bollywood is not a part of the North Indian film industry. But look at the number of sources referring to it as such. That is why, these terms are highly vague and do not possess an official definition. There is no reason as to why Cinema of India cannot accommodate info from this article. Secret of success (talk) 17:02, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 'North Indian film industry' could be a vague term. But 'South Indian film industry' is certainly not. Please have a look at the number of articles in National newspapers that I have quoted in the below comment (I am sure there are much more available). I could not find the term 'North indian film industry' in any national newspapers. The only instance was "We request the brothers in the North Indian film industry not to attend the IIFA awards" quoted in 'India Today'. This is a quotation by some one, and not an editorial statement written by any journalist. -- Anbu121 ( talk me ) 18:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, the term 'South Indian film industry' can exist only when it is ambiguous to North, West or East Indian industries. If there are no articles possible on the latter three, the ambiguity is unnecessary and the title becomes 'Indian film industry' which already exists. Secret of success (talk) 15:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not the government that classifies the film industry into South, North, etc to expect a uniformity. The term is coined by the media and people and there are sufficient evidences for it. The term exists because of the similarity between the four cine industries. North, West, East does not have a group of cine industries together, and hence there are no terms like 'West Indian cine industry', 'North Indian...'. The fact that North, East, West film industries doesn't exist should not stop having an article on 'South Indian film industry'. If a topic meets the notability guideline, it can have its own article. -- Anbu121 ( talk me ) 15:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * So, even if the term is mentioned only by the media and has no official usage, it can still have an article? Secret of success (talk) 07:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Why not? Many articles in Wikipedia are of that kind. -- Anbu121 ( talk me ) 09:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Example? Btw, do South Indian films have a common governing body like the Film Producers Association (Governmental)? All the film industry articles I have seen till date have one. Secret of success (talk) 14:46, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Writing an article does not need the existence of any such association. We can write that the term 'South Indian film industry' refers to the 4 cine industries, and write about the actors, producers, technicians who work across all 4 industries, and the film fare awards that are given together for the 4 industries, and mention that film remakes are common and frequent among the 4 industries, etc, etc.... -- Anbu121 ( talk me ) 15:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, the South becomes a film industry only if it is officially recognized by a governing body. As the media have coined it and there is no official acceptance, it becomes gossip, which is unencyclopedic. The highest authority for the Indian film industry is the CBFC, and it does not even use that word in certifying films. They are always grouped as separate ones. The only proper material you can coin here is the Filmfare part. Also, it does not answer as to why the info cannot be written in Cinema of India. Secret of success (talk) 16:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * How about this-South Indian Film Chamber of Commerce? and where would you write these in Cinema of India. a separate section? or inside or each of the section 'Tamil Cinema', 'Telugu Cinema'...?? -- Anbu121 ( talk me ) 16:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmmm...All right, your last comment has made me change my stance to a certain extent. The South Indian film industry is governed by a widely supported organization, constituting the film chamber of commerce from all the four industries. This makes them official to some extent. Please note my comment below. Secret of success (talk) 15:22, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Let me make my stance more clear. I agree that the content in the article is heavily biased POV pushing and some of the statements unsourced. But, that is not a sufficient rationale for deletion. An article must be deleted only when the subject of the article (South indian film industry in this case) is not notable and does not deserve an article on its own. Look at the media articles below:
 * IIFA puts the spotlight on the South Indian film industry - Times of India South film industry gets bigger - Times of India South film industry to boycott those who attend IIFA - Indian Express South film industry backs banned actress Nikita Thukral - Hindustan Times Sabu Cyril's too expensive for South Indian cinema - Hindustan Times Nayantara- The Queen of South Indian Box Office - New Indian Express South Indian films rocked at National Awards - Hindustan Times South-Indian films make a splash - Hindustan Times South Indian movies: The good, the bad and the ugly - Hindu Business Line


 * The term 'South indian film industry' is well known among the media as well as the people. What the article needs is a complete clean up: removal of unsourced statements and removal of irrelevant POV statements.- Anbu121 ( talk me ) 10:11, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete: The article has nothing different in it. Its simply combination of selective info from 4 articles. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 09:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per reasons given by SpacemanSpiff. &mdash; Vensatry (Ping me)  05:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: As nom, I am changing my stance due to the fact that the South Indian film industry is working under the South Indian Film Chamber of Commerce, a governmental organization. Secret of success (talk) 15:22, 22 July 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.