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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:19, 11 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Marabar Caves

Marabar Caves (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not have WP:SIGCOV to demonstrate notability. A search does show some passing mentions, but at most they just go into more WP:PLOT elements that take place in a single scene. To be clear, the events in the caves quite literally the events that motivate the whole novel, and it would be like writing a separate article for the trial of Tom Robinson and To Kill a Mockingbird. Maybe someone could expand on the plot details to A Passage to India. But as a separate subject, this does not have significant real-world third party coverage. Jontesta ( talk) 14:17, 22 September 2022 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta ( talk) 14:17, 22 September 2022 (UTC) reply
• Can you comment on the various Google Scholar entries that seem to provide coverage for this fictional feature? I am unable to evaluate them myself, as I am unfamiliar with the novel, but can see that they exist and look like they should be evaluated. Jclemens ( talk) 16:57, 22 September 2022 (UTC) reply

• It's an honest question, and the analogy in my nomination was my best way to sum up the sources from the previous AFD. This is like writing an article about the trial of Tom Robinson for To Kill a Mockingbird, or Picture of Dorian Gray (painting) for The Picture of Dorian Gray.
• The plot of the A Passage to India is literally a party of characters deciding to visit some caves, where a British woman is injured in the dark and blames it on an Indian character, and the ensuing fallout of that accusation. "What happened in the caves?" is the central event of the novel, and some of the sources treat the caves more as a subtitle of the novel itself (such as "The Marabar Mystery" or "The meaning of the Marabar Caves"). I would grant that the sources briefly mention the symbolic value of the caves, as dark and mysterious, and as part of the age old discourse on Orientalism and the "mysterious" East. But the caves are also mysterious because the central mystery of the novel is literally the what happened in the caves, and the reaction of the characters to that mystery. (And, by extension, the audience reading the novel, and the scholars who write about it.)
• In short, the sources provide an analysis of the events of the novel as a whole, rather than anything notable about the actual space. There's some good scholarly material, but it would be on topic at the main article. Jontesta ( talk) 20:49, 22 September 2022 (UTC) reply

• Keep for broadly the same reasons as in the previous AfD. Significant coverage has been clearly shown to exist. The nominator muddles things by comparing this article on a fictional setting to a hypothetical article on a fictional event: while fictional events like Tom Robinson's trial are unlikely to be independently notable, fictional settings very often are, and we have lots of articles on them. The nominator muddles things further with their last comment above: if you think this subject should be covered in the main article rather than in a separate article, you're proposing a merge—which there'd be a stronger case for, as per WP:PAGEDECIDE we can sometimes consider independently notable topics as part of broader articles—and this is the wrong venue. (Improving this with some of the sources identified has been on my to-do list for a while, and will remain so if it's kept, but I unfortunately can't give a sense of when I might actually get round to that.) –  Arms & Hearts ( talk) 11:03, 24 September 2022 (UTC) reply

• I can't support a merge for content that hasn't been written yet. I nominated this for deletion after reviewing the sources, because I had strong doubts that even a hypothetical expansion could cover anything that isn't really about the novel and its most central scene in the plot. But a redirect would be most appropriate if you don't plan on expanding it until later. Jontesta ( talk) 14:14, 27 September 2022 (UTC) reply
• I support keeping them. - Kylelovesyou ( talk) 18:00, 29 September 2022 (UTC) reply

• Thanks for adding some citations. I agree this article seems worthy of keeping. - 73.15.56.47 ( talk) 18:02, 29 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:31, 29 September 2022 (UTC) reply

• Weak keep or merge. Repeating my vote from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marabar Caves. I don't see that the nom addressed the soruces found during that discussins by User:Arms & Hearts. I found them mildly convincing them. Of course, it woild be nice to finally see someone actually improve this article... but what we have in the Mystery/Interpretations sections is not too bad. PS. Per the last comment by A&H I'd also be ok with a merge and redirect. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:01, 1 October 2022 (UTC) reply
• Redirect: I agree that the "Mystery of the caves" section is just trying to stretch a plot summary into something that it is WP:NOT, and you'd need more/different coverage make a stand-alone article about a single scene. This might fit within the main article about the novel, but even the interpretation subsection isn't really WP:NOTABLE outside of the main story. Shooterwalker ( talk) 18:32, 1 October 2022 (UTC) reply
• Merge A read of the sources covers a lot of the plot material at the main article. But there is some scene analysis worth WP:PRESERVEing. Archrogue ( talk) 20:17, 2 October 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep and oppose merge. Clearly passes WP:SIGCOV which was established in the first AFD by Arms & Hearts who provided links in JSTOR to several literary journal articles that address the topic directly and in detail . To quote their keep vote from the first AFD, "Admittedly a bit unusual for a fictional setting, but there's a lot of coverage in reliable sources: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], and that's just from the first page of Google Scholar results. The article could be rewritten to focus more on these critical debates and a lot less on the plot summary, but it's a notable topic. –  Arms & Hearts" This should not have been re-nominated. 4meter4 ( talk) 05:43, 6 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:59, 7 October 2022 (UTC) reply

• I guess for me the question is whether the plot point really has a "life of its own" outwith of the novel. I think we have some evidence that it does, given it has been a specific subject of scholarly study. On that basis I would !vote keep. JMWt ( talk) 07:52, 7 October 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep, these caves have clearly been the subject of scholarly analysis that goes beyond a mere plot summary, as seen by the sources cited by 4meter4 above. As such, they clearly pass WP:GNG. Devonian Wombat ( talk) 11:16, 9 October 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep The secondary sources listed above show that there is WP:SIGCOV after all, and as they have already been presented in the first deletion discussion, this should have been clear from the start. As there is analysis of the function and symbolism in those sources, the suggestion that there is only WP:PLOT information seem likewise in error. Daranios ( talk) 19:06, 9 October 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep per the comments above. The new sources show there is sufficient WP:SIGCOV to establish notability though the article certainly needs improving and refocusing towards those critical debates; but this does not mean we should delete per WP:DINC. Jtrrs0 ( talk) 17:45, 10 October 2022 (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.