Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atman (Jainism)

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 and move. Non-admin closure. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Atman (Jainism)

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

This article does not cite any sources or references. Rahul Jain (talk) 16:29, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 February 12. Snotbot t • c » 16:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Ātman (Jainism). Just because it doesn't currently cite any sources doesn't mean it fails WP:GNG or meets some other criterion for deletion. If you have some specific reason why the page should be deleted, please state that: otherwise, why not try improving it by providing sources yourself? Also, please remember that Wikipedia is a work-in-progress: we don't need every article that is imperfect to be deleted. elvenscout742 (talk) 07:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(I should also note that I know nothing about Jainism. I just think that a reasonable case needs to be made if the article is to be deleted. elvenscout742 (talk) 07:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Please see WP:DEL-REASON, #8 in particular. The article fails the notability criteria. Notability requires verifiable evidence Also, if you read WP:N, the very first line says that On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a topic can have its own article. Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. Rahul Jain (talk) 16:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know that. But you need to demonstrate that this subject is not notable in spite of the roughly 17,000 books that discuss Jainism and the atman. Please understand that just because the article doesn't currently cite any sources, it doesn't mean that no sources exist, and it doesn't mean the subject is not notable. elvenscout742 (talk) 01:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that I do not have the burden to demonstrate this topic is not notable. The article currently have Dictionary definition of what atman is, followed by the claim that atman is one of the tattva. As far as I know, jiva is a tattva and not atman and there is a difference between both the terms. However, I may be wrong. If someone can not cite a reference that atman is also a tattva, and expand the article to be more than just a dictionary definition within reasonable time, I think the article should be deleted. Until then, lets see what others has to say on this. Rahul Jain (talk) 03:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BURDEN applies to inclusion of information in an article. You are perfectly free to delete questionable material that isn't sourced and that you think cannot be verified. However, deletion of the entire article requires evidence that it cannot be improved, and that sources cannot be found -- you have not done this. You can delete the claim that atman is also a tattva. (I have no training in Jainism, and what I know of Hinduism and non-Japanese Buddhism comes from books I read once almost a decade ago, so I actually have no idea what "tattva" is.) If someone has a problem with you deleting the claim, then the WP:BURDEN will be on them to find a reliable source that makes the same claim. However, at AFD the burden is on the nominator to demonstrate that the article has no place on Wikipedia. elvenscout742 (talk) 05:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned earlier, the article fails the criteria of notability (WP:DEL-REASON #8) due to absence of any sources at all. Lets wait and see what others have to say on this and have someone neutral close the discussion and decide the consensus. Rahul Jain (talk) 16:43, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be ready to guess that most Wikipedia articles cite either no sources or insufficient sources. This by itself is not a valid reason for deletion. You need to demonstrate that the topic is not notable and has not been covered in any other sources. I have already pointed out to you the thousands of books that appear to discuss the subject. I also notice that you have yet to contact the article's creator to see which sources they actually based the article on. elvenscout742 (talk) 00:39, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Ātman (Jainism). Agree with Elvenscout742. There are numerous sources on the topic which can be added, all that is needed is to tag the article appropriately. Articleye (talk) 05:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Elvenscout742 and Articleye. The user who has nominated this article for deletion is quoting wikipedia policies selectively without understanding.It can be expanded into a major article as the concept of Atman is fulcrum to the philosophy of Wikipedia. However, it is suggested that diacritics be avoided in naming the article as it will make the search difficult. Rather the popular spelling of Atman be kept.--Indian Chronicles (talk) 06:41, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Diacritics won't make searching any more difficult, as the current title will be made into a redirect. The relevant guideline is at MOS:FOREIGN: The use of diacritics (such as accent marks) for foreign words is neither encouraged nor discouraged [... and we should p]rovide redirects from alternative forms that use or exclude diacritics. The fact that the other two articles on this subject as it relates to Buddhism and Hinduism both give a macron means that for consistency's sake it's probably better to do so. (Additionally, since every item on the list at Atman either currently has or probably should have a diacritic the redirect page itself should probably be moved.) elvenscout742 (talk) 01:19, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A very important and frequently discussed topic in Jainism.Malaiya (talk)

Keep - We have articles on Ātman (Hinduism) and Ātman (Buddhism). This topic, too, is notable in its own right. As it stands, the article is nothing more than a stub. It should be expanded with sources and references, along the lines of the other two articles, to give it its own distinctive identity. Similarly, the title could be amended to Ātman (Jainism). But deleting it seems preposterous, if one looks at the other two articles. Notability is not really an issue here. Questioning this here is tantamount to questioning what Jainism stands for.--Zananiri (talk) 14:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. elvenscout742 (talk) 03:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Zananiri's reasoning. This is a notable concept in Indic religions, including Ātman (Hinduism), Ātman (Buddhism), and Atman (Jainism). Per WP:MOS, however, I would recommended removing the macron on the letter "A". I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 03:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just added some more information and references to the article on the how the concept of atman is unique in Jainism, as opposed to Buddhism and Hinduism. Cheers, Anupam^Talk 04:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, MOS says we can use the macron, and the other two articles indicate that we should move Atman (Jainism) to Ātman (Jainism) for consistency. How many more times am I going to have to clarify this? elvenscout742 (talk) 04:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, should Atman be moved to Ātman since every item on the list has a macron? elvenscout742 (talk) 04:22, 19 February 2013 (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.