Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Punyaha

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. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:57, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Punyaha

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

is there really need for this article? shouldn't it be merged as part of a ritual? I'm not an expert but I don't think this has independent notability besides relevant religion, which it could be merged to. Viztor (talk) 19:46, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Viztor (talk) 19:46, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Viztor (talk) 19:46, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No good reason for deletion offered by nominator. Mccapra (talk) 20:44, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:03, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nominator appears to be proposing merging articles about religious rituals with the articles about the religions themselves. That would make our articles about religions ridiculously large. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:34, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, just added a source, I do not understand why this is sent to AFD. Nominator made their previous nomination 2-3 minutes before, so again no WP:BEFORE has been performed. Could we be spared this kind of WP:DRIVEBY deletion tagging? Sam Sailor 11:00, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Phil Bridger and Mccapra:What I'm saying is this belong to an article on the rituals of the religion. We shouldn't be creating individual article for different steps of the same ritual, it would just confuse the reader. Viztor (talk) 11:22, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Viztor: yes and I’m saying that’s not a valid reason for deletion. If there is a merge target article you think is suitable, go ahead and propose a merge following the normal process. There’s no reason to bring it to AfD. If you think it should be merged to an article that doesn’t yet exist,then you kind of have your answer. In any case there is nothing remotely “confusing” about having an article on this specific topic. Users are very likely to encounter the unknown term ‘Punyaha’ and look it up, so this article meets that need exactly. Mccapra (talk) 11:39, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For example, if someone is arrested and prosecuted, are we going to write an article on the arrest and one on the prosecution? It doesn't make sense of the division. The whole thing makes a story, not the individual steps. It is just a terrible way of writing. And there is no article to merge to, however, that doesn't justify the creation of individual steps of a broader understandable topic which what we need an article on. Viztor (talk) 12:01, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which ritual do you claim this to be a step of? Phil Bridger (talk) 12:43, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you're so determined to get rid of this. It is meaningful, sourced and encyclopaedic. You say you're not an expert and you also say there's no article to merge it to, so maybe just move on to tackle something that we really need to get rid of because it's a hoax, or unsourced, or promotional or non-notable. Mccapra (talk) 13:42, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mccapra: I'm not determined, the article is still just terrible writing, it says nothing about the ritual itself besides it being a ritual, and the different names of it. Perhaps you know about the ritual, however, the article doesn't make sense, how is anyone suppose to know if they are notable, from what is currently in this article, it is portrayed as part of other rituals, and there is no article on the rituals as an overview. Not to mention the lack of any other x-wiki mention. If you think this is important, then there is certainly a lot of ways to improve it so it actually makes sense. Viztor (talk) 09:36, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article makes perfect sense to me, and I know little about Hinduism, and I don't see where this is portrayed as part of other rituals. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:36, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm a little surprised not to see a Hindi wiki article about this (at least when I copy/pasted the Hindi on offer in this article) but the sourcing seems to suggest notability here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: No good reason for deletion offered by nominator. S/he may wonder if there is "really need for this article?" However such wonderings are not cause for deletion.

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.