Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adarsana

: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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:32, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

=[[Adarsana]]=

:{{la|Adarsana}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Adarsana Stats])

:({{Find sources|Adarsana}})

As far as I can make out this appears to be a dictionary entry for a word in Sanskrit. or some form of disambiguation page. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:10, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Keep. Although the current first sentence focuses on the word adarsana as a word, it seems that the intent is to discuss the concept of absence or invisibility in Hinduism. Cnilep (talk) 01:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Keep - It's a term and concept, rather than a simple dictionary definition. E.g. (from the article), "The term, adarsana, a technical term in Yoga meaning ignorance or absence of knowledge, figures prominently in the discussions pertaining to the Sadhanapada of Yoga Sutras of Patanjali." Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:39, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Delete: Per WP:DICDEF. Can be rewitten when and if someone ever finds sources to write an article on the concept, if such sources even exist, but as a stub and dicdef, it serves no useful purpose, even as a starting point for a possible future article. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:23, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

:*Comment - Actually, some sources exist within the article that cover the topic (e.g. [http://books.google.co.in/books?id=58ndiC9MpMYC&pg=PA193&dq=adarsana&hl=en&sa=X&ei=FQ5IUY6eFoXxrQfwoIDQAQ&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=adarsana&f=false], [http://books.google.co.in/books?id=_Qo9K9hPvQgC&pg=PA133&dq=adarsana&hl=en&sa=X&ei=FQ5IUY6eFoXxrQfwoIDQAQ&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=adarsana&f=false]). Did you read the sources within the article? Your statement above "if such sources even exist..." suggests that you didn't read or consider them. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Keep - At first glance, the article may look like a dictionary interpretation and a lot of waffle because of the long sentences and the manner in which the subject is presented. For example, the section on Buddhism consists of just one paragraph of only one sentence containing over 80 words. It is easy for the layman to think it is a lot of mumbo-jumbo. The paragraph on Jainism comprises two sentences in all, the first one again containing over 80 words. Excessively long sentences are indeed a common feature in the article and spoil it, in my view, giving one the impression that it is written like an essay by an examination candidate. I think, just the style in which the material is presented could have improved the article by leaps and bounds and stopped it from becoming an AfD candidate. Long-winding sentences in Wiki articles often do give one the wrong impression, but this topic/concept is indeed notable enough for the reasons mentioned in the article and the sources should not be dismissed out of hand..--Zananiri (talk) 09:38, 6 July 2013 (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.