Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anumarana

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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:32, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anumarana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

1. Anumarana is widow burning (sati) taking place separately after death and cremation of husband (sati proper being conjoint burning), not some distinct retainer type of self sacrifice. 2 The stated sources on this article are unreliable websites, I can back up my claim with many scholarly references. 3. On its own, anumarana is NOT notable as its own article, I have included section on it at Sati (practice)) Arildnordby (talk) 12:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A couple, of MANY references: a) Encyclopaedia of Indian Women Through the Ages: Ancient India

b) Loops and Roots: The Conflict Between Official and ... - Side 554

Furthermore: Link 1 in the article is a practically unsearchable link, to an online edition of some work at a devotional website. The second link is a saint's biography, again from a devotional website, nor does it seem to back up any of the claims in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arildnordby (talk • contribs) 14:14, 2 February 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - A simple google book search gives [1] many many links to book - to make the article notable. Lack of reference should not be a reason to delete. Either one should improve it or tag the article accordingly for necessary improvements by other editors. There is also WT:INB notice board for India related article to be brought to notice of expert editors on Indian articles. Furthermore, have you gone through WP:MERGE. If you thought that article was worth merging with Sati article before copy pasting same to Sati article, you should have tagged Megre template and editors would than vote for merging or not on it's talk page. The whole AfD is therefore misplaced. Thanks. Jethwarp (talk) 05:02, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Some of the sources available online clearly say Anumarana should not be confused with Sati practice. It would have better, if you would have put up merge templeate and ref improve tags. Jethwarp (talk) 05:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't said Anumarana isn't mentioned anywhere (quite the opposite, in fact), but that a) It is not the retainer sacrifice it represents it and b) Technically, it is just sati performed after the husband has already been cremated, rather than being cremated with him. As a technical detail for a variation of sati it about as worthwhile keeping it as a separate article, as generating A) one article on sati performed on the open pyre B) one article on sati performed with woman and husband enclosed within a little grass hut and c) one article on sati performed in a dug-out, fiery pit. A), B) and C) are all attested practices, that doesn't make them independently notable to warrant their own articles.Arildnordby (talk) 11:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Different names, it is unclear when this practice started, or any notable incidents. It is just one term. But where are the cases, incidents? It is correct that this thing distracts from Sati, one may even believe that "Yes sati is outlawed but what about Anumarana?". Not sufficient either, it may remain stub, forever. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:07, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Nice work by Jethwarp, withdrawn. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:37, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I have already added several sources and improved the aritcle. Lack of missing information is no reason to delete. Please get acquainted with deletion discussion arguments. Your Keep or Delete vote should be on basis of Wiki policies and not vague arguments like above.Jethwarp (talk) 18:02, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What vague statements?? Should we make three Sati (practice, pyre), Sati (practice, hut) and Sati (practice, pit)??? Good improvement from you, though. But still, no reliable sources for anumarana being a retainer sacrifice.~Your added sources says quite--the opposite.Arildnordby (talk) 18:38, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Clincher was Jethwarp great work, in particular finding on sufficiently different retainer sacrifice. Will rewrite sub-entry on Sati (practice), with a link to Anumarana as main article.Arildnordby (talk) 21:01, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 23:46, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - @ Arildnordby in view of your Keep vote now you may also use WP:WITHDRAWN option for early closure of this AdD. Jethwarp (talk) 06:20, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not how to close properly?? Should I add something? I do not see where, and what I should do, technicalwise that is.Arildnordby (talk) 06:34, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You need not close it. It will be closed by some Admin or uninvolved editor. But however, I take liberty to cancel your earlier comments (which is as per norm when you change your mind) please feel free to revert if it does not suit you. Jethwarp (talk) 06:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see that I am within the sole exception case for "speedy keep" for non-administrator closure. However,am I expected to go through that long closure process??Arildnordby (talk) 06:57, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment User:Bladesmulti deserves full credit for re-thinking his position (at the time he wrote it, I was in full agreement with him, due to complete lack of sources warranting the independent standing of the article), even though he made a minor technical mistake in deleting his prior comment when issuing his change of mind.Arildnordby (talk) 09:45, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge This practice is nothing but Sati practice, for which there is a separate full length article. So, there is no purpose keeping Anumarana as a separate article and be merged with Sati article. Or, rather, this info would be a part of Sati article. Rayabhari (talk) 14:04, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have, personally, nothing against the Merge option (I like your argument). But, I think it would be best to get Anumarana off the Deletion List first (and I want an administrator to do that, rather than do it myself).Arildnordby (talk) 14:15, 8 February 2014 (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.