Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aurat (word)


 * 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 no consensus. Mostly because of the long and nearly incomprehensible rants by the nominator, Bookku, this discussion wasn't able to focus on what, if any, actual problems this article has. If this is renominated for deletion, I strongly recommend that it is done by somebody else.  Sandstein  21:08, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Aurat (word)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Self nomination for AFD since article copy pasted to Draft:Aurat for incubation because current article title Aurat (word) is misleading and confusing leading to western systemic bias and stifling the article growth. Detail reason follows in following section:

What article originally intended it include
The terms "Aurat", "Arvad", "Avret", and "Awrath" may refer to: Women of Asian religious or cultural descent Women of Asian religious or cultural descent and identity.

Though grammar and various facets of identity of Aurat are to be covered in this article, but purpose of article Aurat (English Wikipedia article) is just not limited to any single facet but whole gamut of association, experiences, perceptions, social and cultural construct of Asian women and people who identify and/or associate themselves with 'Aurat'. Including taking note of cultural, popular culture & literary references, contemporary and also accumulated over the centuries.


 * Literary reviews of those women autobiographies who are identified or identify themselves as Aurat example


 * Coverage of 'Aurat' through Essays, research, stories, novels, poetry other related  literature.


 * Coverage of 'Aurat' through fine arts like paintings to performing arts like dramas and movies


 * Activism, Conservative and modernist feminist views.


 * When articles related to different facets are their then why do we have an article ? Only looking at separated body parts does not give idea of Human being, only presenting human being is not enough but total associated experience need to be presented. And that what we are supposed to do in encyclopedic writings.

Reason for self nomination for AFD
As predicted @ Talk:Aurat edits like this one are but natural. I can't blame user like because we selected a title so. Question is not which content he deleted. First Non-word related content will go, then Wikipedia is not dictionary so rest of the content will go.

That what I did not intend when I started article and made content support requests on so many Asian language Wikipedias too. When article for Woman exists simultaneously article for Lady too exists but some how western systemic bias of English Wikipedia community wants to stifle existence of "Aurat" on English Wikipedia. I find myself helpless so as now decided to incubate article at Draft:Aurat and put for AFD here.

Questions answered

 * On one of talk pages question was asked "...could you explain what part of it is misleading and causing systemic bias?.."


 * As explained above article was never intended for limited dictionary purpose but entire gamut of human experience. So word in bracket "(word)" is specially misleading. The article deserves original title Aurat or may be some thing like Aurat (Women of Asian descent) something like so editors don't end up removing non grammatical content from article. Why I used word western systemic bias of Wikipedians because    title Aurat got denied at Talk:Aurat through a process where people of Asian descent didn't represent proportionately enough.


 * I have updated Articles for deletion/Aurat (word) for your question. Article can't be reorganized (attempts to reorganizing unlikely to succeed) because other editors will keep deleting any non grammar content and that is already happening at the article.
 * Rather than after putting all effort some one comes and deletes content saying it's beyond a scope of word is an harassment of those people who take all the effort to make article for group of women 'Aurat' and content keep getting deleted.
 * Rather let me put it my self for deletion so my own efforts and of other editors won't go wasted.


 * Posting this reply on deletion request page too. Thanks for your concerns

Thanks anyways Bookku (talk) 01:51, 10 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Strong keep Deletion is absolutely out of question. The nominator does not gave clear idea how wikipedia works. They are very welcome to work in their draft space, and then to merge into the existing page. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:13, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.  Kpg  jhp  jm  02:35, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  Kpg  jhp  jm  02:35, 10 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep, but purge the South Asian systemic bias. For hundreds of millions of Southeast Asians, the word "Aurat" simply means Awrah. That's a topic that strongly and often negatively affects women's lives, but does not mean "woman" (of whatever descent); and to a lesser segree, it also affects men in those cultures. This is neither reflected in the dab Aurat nor in Aurat (word). The same South Asian systemic bias is visible in the proposed title Aurat (Women of Asian descent). –Austronesier (talk) 07:23, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Draftify, find a notable coherent and non-WP:COATRACK topic ("encyclopedic notability of any of the aspect" (per comment below) is not enough: WP:NOTESSAY), and remove the South Asian systemic bias. –Austronesier (talk) 08:21, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I answered both on Talk:Aurat (word) as bellow.
 * Thanks for your frank expression. And you seem to know linguistics better.
 * 1) Asians including South Asians did not turn up -even to make objections- in previous discussion @ Talk:Aurat despite similar requests across pages. Due to AFD at least few seem to take notice. Asian's own disinterest too contributes in systemic bias.
 * 2)Some one else's stifling edit removed disambiguating hatnote template making mention about 'Intimate parts in Islam' This is how systemic bias enters unknowingly.
 * 3) When 'Intimate parts in Islam' article already exists for 'awrah does same meaning of 'Aurat' used in south east asia would need another article? Is it not wise to allocate title for rest of Asia associating with Aurat as cultural women.
 * 4) And what happens in south east Asia when woman's entire whole body is considered 'Aurat' (Then in that case is not whole body of south east Asian woman means whole women?) Do you need refs for some conservatives consider whole body as Aurat in south east Asia too?
 * 5) If we reserve article for south Asians only where we will fit in Azerbaijani using word arvad etymologically from same family. And then what to do with historic usage as woman by Persians and ottoman Turkish? And what do we do with, "As per Moshe Piamenta in his book "Islam in Everyday Arabic Speech", notes that in bedouin language, synecdochic usage of word 'awrat' denotes 'woman'.
 * 6) here it self another user asking to go some where else with gamut. He only relates with word and not the gamut. What do we do ? You also initially commented "...The article is about the word, not about (rest of XYZ).." The word "Word" in the title, automatically  informs limited scope to the article every editor would not visit article talk page before deleting rest of gamut, isn't it? ( I don't know if at all you visited talk page before edits usually very few study talk page before any edit isn't it?)
 * Don't we need to find proper solution to article title that would allow the gamut part without putting editors in trouble.
 * What do you think, your inputs are welcome. Thanks
 * Bookku (talk) 08:22, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I will only answer point 1) and 4) now. Ad 1: I have been aware of the RM-discussion, but didn't care about it, because I am more interested in discussions about the creation of content than about the creation of a mess. Ad 4: Despite the fact there are conservative Islamic schools of thought in SE Asia which consider the entire female body as awrah, the word aurat does not mean "woman" in SE Asian languages. –Austronesier (talk) 08:42, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't have reason for very strong argument here because there no real intention existed to appropriate south east Asian Women's perspective, Whatever way article improves directly or indirectly south east Asian women too would be in benefit. Unfortunately not many women or Muslim women in discussions across Wikipedias to concur either way.
 * On side note in south east Asia, aurat does not mean "woman" but entire awrah of female too means "Aurat" (to draw a parallel, It's like saying, 'we don't eat but have food'). :) Okay but not insisting on the point :)
 * Any encyclopedic articles are mess at beginning level, instead of longer duration in draft I brought article to main name space with a hope that better attention from Asian wikipedians will help improve article faster, but that any way not happening then why insist on retaining a messy article in main namespace why not let it get draft and breathe easier until wikipedian community takes call for better title.
 * Thanks Bookku (talk) 09:19, 10 June 2020 (UTC)


 * On the contrary: Delete the draft and move the article to draft space. The copy-paste of the article's content into a new draft page was a mistake. As for the article itself&mdash;if it is to be about the word&mdash;what makes the word suitable for a Wikipedia article doesn't begin until the Objections section. Everything up until that point is (a) dictionary-style coverage of the word, its various meanings and connotations, and its etymology (see WP:NOTDICTIONARY) and (b) material that, in English, could just as well have been composed without any use of the word "aurat" at all; its topic is really "social views of women in certain societies".
 * Certainly, some context needs to be given for the content in the Objections section to make sense, but the existing content goes into way more detail than necessary for that. Its bulk obscures that the Objections material is the core of what justifies having an article about the word 'aurat' at all.
 * The "in popular culture" section is a digression, free-associating trivia, shedding no light on the word, and doesn't belong here.
 * If the nominator's point is that the article should be about the concept rather than the word, that gets me back to the existing content being about social views on women in certain societies. That, in the language of those societies, the word aurat is used isn't really any more relevant than is the fact that in France the word used to refer to automobiles is voitures is relevant to Automotive industry in France. The controversy over aurat could appear as an example of reaction to those social views. But a note on that would be subordinate to the article's primary topic. Largoplazo (talk) 10:35, 10 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep but possibly then move to "Aurat (concept)" or some similar title which clarifies the topic of the article. 
 * Draftify
 * Some background: I am not an expert in this subject area, but I do a lot of work with disambiguation pages etc.
 * I was alerted to this topic when a long-standing disambiguation page Aurat was moved to Aurat (disambiguation) by User:Bookku on 11 May with no discussion, to make way for their new article: this move would only have been correct if "Aurat", as described in that new article, was the "Primary Topic", more often sought in the encyclopedia than all the other uses put together. This seemed unlikely as the subject had not had a Wikipedia article at all until that point, but I could not simply revert the move so made a formal Move Request to revert the disambiguation page to the base name and move the new article to Aurat (word) (which seemed an appropriate title as the article began "Aurat is word for women (also wife) specially in south Asia..."). After discussion at Talk:Aurat, the dab page was moved back to the basic title (ie consensus that there is currently no Primary Topic), and the new article was moved to Aurat (word). Mid-discussion the idea of moving to a different title was raised, but that would have confused the discussion.
 * I removed two inappropriate hatnotes: that's presumably what is listed above as "Some one else's stifling edit removed disambiguating hatnote template making mention about 'Intimate parts in Islam' This is how systemic bias enters unknowingly."
 * As "Awrah" does not redirect to this article, the hatnote "For other uses of "Awrah", see Intimate parts in Islam." is not apppropriate. As Awrah redirects to Intimate parts in Islam, it might, or might not, be appropriate to add a redirect hatnote to that article: "Awrah redirects here. For the related term see Aurat (word)", or some such wording.
 * The Disamb-terms hatnote ("The terms "Aurat", "Arvad", "Avrat", and "Awrath" may refer to: Women of Asian religious or cultural descent.") is for use at the head of a disambiguation page. It was not appropriate here.
 * Bookku does not appear to recognise, or be willing to go along with, Wikipedia's Manual of Style.
 * Only one editor seems to have made any substantial edits to this article. I notice that Bookku has now tried to alert many editors to this discussion, by posting on the talk pages of over 30 Wikiprojects and related articles. Moving the article to draft at this stage does not seem helpful: if there is a topic here to be written about then it should be being written about here in mainspace with contributions from other interested editors.
 * Pam D  11:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, changed my !vote to "Draftify". There seems to be a probably notable word or concept - the fact that English language sources talk about "Aurat March", not just "Women's March" suggests this - but the current article rambles around and needs a lot more work and focus. Then it can be proposed at AfC when it is fit for mainspace. After/if it is in mainspace there could be a properly discussed Request to Move if anyone proposed it as the Primary Topic of the term "Aurat", rather than the previous unilateral decision to demote a long-standing disambiguation page. Pam  D  15:12, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * "... if there is a topic here to be written about ...": well, precisely. This article doesn't know yet what its topic is. The content is about at least two topics. So how are we going to choose an appropriate title for it? I think your remark is a reason why it should be moved to draft space, so that interested editors can figure out what this article will be about, or split it into multiple articles about different topics, before putting into article space appropriately titled content. Largoplazo (talk) 15:44, 10 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. The page is a horrible mish-mash of dicdef, customs women are expected to follow in South Asia, and attitudes to female sexual body parts. There is no clear topic to this page, so there is no clear place it can be moved to that would make sense. SpinningSpark 00:44, 11 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment for Record: As one user said above, in spite of appeal on several talk pages to join discussion whether this time or previous time @ Talk:Aurat neither Asians in General or South Asians in particular did not turn up in these discussions. And absolutely not surprise, I have been scouting and looking for women Wikipedian IDs for translating Women rights article except south of South Asia in rest of Asian language Wikipedias women seem to be largely absent. Much of feminist narratives are not even updated on English Wikipedia -What do article USA France speak of women rights issues in their own countries ? situation for the rest is not good enough isn't a surprise.
 * It's not every thing is bad, rather most of my other articles got very good curation support, without over riding encyclopedic priorities. Unfortunately Aurat did not turn out to be lucky.
 * Various objections to the article are sign of unawareness ignorance and unwillingness to know more about a distinct women's culture which likely to loose it's own identity in times of Globalisation. Much sources are available in respective local vernacular languages (but if those are not participating then it's obvious they will lose some where by own disinterest or absence)
 * These objections are having one more characteristic of being logically fallacious. Various other multiple women related articles are existing on English Wikipedia they will be having etymologies discussed, culture and social evils discussed. Even articles on non English words do exist, and why those should not be there in encyclopedia?
 * Here we refuse disambiguation support in hat note on one hand overlooking need of reader support; same time hand over core article title space to disambiguation overlooking protest and artificially help generate issue how to name the article!
 * They claim main article title Aurat needs to be used as disambiguation page for benefit of people searching movie titles and those readers will have great inconvenience, instead of an encyclopedic article! What a great reason, why not apply same logic to articles Girl,Woman, Female, Lady and many many other articles too because they too would have many movies and other popular culture titles and hand over all those article titles for disambiguation.
 * And some one objected me proposing to include encyclopedic section on popular culture. List of popular culture links will do, but a section of encyclopedic writing about popular culture will not do and we will term it as mixing up many subjects! I feel concept of encyclopedia being turned upside down, but when rest of Wikipedian democracy would not feel so my minority opinion would not have much scope. Then is it not really better let the article get deleted.
 * I know, many times rants have no value (for various reasons), so this is just for record with least hope.
 * Thanks anyways to everybody for expressing own opinions Bookku (talk) 12:28, 16 June 2020 (UTC)


 * You've written a lot (TLDR) but that gets me no closer to understanding what the topic of the article is actually supposed to be. What would you write in the short description field?  Even accepting it isn't a dictionary article, we still need to know what it positively is. SpinningSpark 16:35, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 07:10, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, but rename, perhaps to Aurat (South Asia), or indeed something else entirely. The article needs to define its subject more clearly. Johnbod (talk) 12:29, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It isn't a place, so that name is no more suitable than the current one. See my comment above.  We can't rename the article until we establish what the topic actually is.  And if you can't establish that, why on earth do you want to keep it? Spinning<b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 16:35, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Geographical disams are not restricted to articles on places. Johnbod (talk) 19:34, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * All right, but that gets us no closer to knowing what the topic of the article is. Is there an encyclopaedic topic that called Aurat that is common to all of South Asia?  If so, what is it?  We can't even begin to address what the article should be called, let alone whether it is notable, until that is answered. Then there is the question of whether this effort is actually helpful in constructing that article or whether it is just easier to start again.  If a page can't clearly get across what the subject is, it is a pretty hopeless case. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 19:46, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the topic of this article is a commonly used word and it's meaning, origin and the social agendas associated with it. Many people speak it as a reference to women in parts of Asia (including India), without knowing much about it. On a personal basis, I used to think it was Hindi for "woman", and now I have found out it's origin and other meanings so for me it is a word that must have become popular in India during the Mughal overtaking. I think this article is encyclopedic, as many think it is just a word for any woman, but it has a history of its own. I think we should do some expansion and cleanup.--Navinsingh133 (talk) 22:39, 20 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Draftify: this needs to be WP:TNTed; incomprehensible article, start over. To me "Aurat" is just the Hindi translation of "women" without any special meaning. But this article seems to be about some made up neo-feminist SJW concept. The article's author seems to be arguing about some "distinct women's culture" in South Asia that needs to be documented in "Aurat" article. But there's a distinct women's culture in every single culture? It can simply be documented articles titled "Women in [some culture]". From my understanding, some content can go to Women in Islam, Women in Hinduism, Women in South Asia or Women in India. after reading the author's "for the record" statement, I agree that perhaps the article just needs some more work. I'll recommend draftification and have this go through AfC. Regards, TryKid&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 07:58, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep on the lines of what Johnbod said above. --Hindustanilanguage (talk) 17:20, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, Aurat is a common word for women in parts of Asia, used by billions of people. I believe that the subject alone is encyclopedic enough. I am a little confused by all the discussions here and there so I'll just review the article on my own. It does need some rework but it should be kept. We can keep articles of less importance but delete this? It's my opinion that the article is kept and further improvements be made as needed. Any non-encyclopedic content should be removed. Thanks.--Navinsingh133 (talk) 22:22, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * you are absolutely right that women in Asia is an important topic, but we already have that page. We also have women in South Asia.  Do you think that Aurat is somehow a different topic from those?  If so, in what way? <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 22:39, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes I believe it is a different topic, both on a personal basis and encyclopedic point of view. This word seems to have different meanings in different parts of Asia, In some places like India it is used for a normal respected women and in some places it is a word depicting women as objects. Its origin, its impact, its recognition etc. can't be under "Women in Asia". That is too broad for this subject. I just found an entire side of it while reviewing the article. Personally for me, how it became a Hindi word should also be explained in the article. I agree with Spinningspark that its misuse should be stopped and personal views removed immediately. We need to perform some cleanups. Admins better get their mop. Also, I think we should add a new section otherwise I will get lost in all these codes.--Navinsingh133 (talk) 22:57, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Article content cleanup is most definitely not the job of administrators. It's the job of ordinary editors, i.e. you.  I asked above for the creator to say what they would write in the short description field, but they haven't answered yet.  I'll ask you the same question.  If the answer is "Aurat is a word meaning " (like the article currently opens with) then this is not a viable Wikipedia article.  Meanings of words belong in, not here.  You say in your post that the word has a different meaning in India to what it has in, say, Malaysia.  That shows that the word does not represent a single concept.  Wikipedia articles should be about things (including people and concepts), not about words.  An article on the denigration or subservience of women in Asia might be viable, an article on a word that is sometimes used in that sense, probably not. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 11:57, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, used by "billions of people" is not a good reason for creating an article on a word. Many English words are used by billions (frankly, heighten, spotted, striped, layabout) but don't have articles.  And they don't have them for a good reason. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 13:35, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Just for sake of it, I have already written, but to be honest I can't be comfortable with any restrictive definitions or short description cause those are our conveniences for improving our understanding-My/our understanding definitions and short descriptions don't stop how the earth moves. Suppose I am Alien-pedian of an distant alien planet starting article on 'Earth', I will define or short describe it but not use it for restrictive purposes what to include in article because it will create unnecessary hindrance in potential growth of the article. As some thing is discovered I will go on adding earth related encyclopedic notes and as any section increases more I will fork them  out in different article.
 * Coming back to Wikipedia on earth, let me give you example, there is article Islamic feminism, information which was not relevant after a talk page notice I deleted, but there is one more section on dress codes where editors seems went on adding lot of content, length of section has gone out of proportion. Now I am thinking on forking it out for "Islamic feminist views on Dress code". Wikipedia is continuously developing encyclopedia why curation make encyclopedic writers  spend disproportionate energy to convince first, otherwise you don't work, is the sky falling down? is this not irrational level of fear creating impediments in encyclopedic spirit? Proper encyclopedic writers are less in numbers than curators. But curator's phobias are over riding encyclopedic spirit in the whole process. What happens if the encyclopedic spirit goes ahead with proper referenced content? at the most after few weeks / months / years you will split or move the article but whatever you will be having is more not less.
 * Aurat is human socio-cultural entity has evolved and existed since around a thousand year by now. Here itself with an extra effort at least one Azerbaijani user came in support of the article, had I agreed to constraining definition and short description an opportunity of information would if not lost is certainly postponed. Why do I assume every information exists in English world. I have not contacted any central Asian using russian or an African using french and may be more languages using Aurat word tomorrow an editor comes searching and would add some info Who knows ? How do I know 'Women of Asian' is not a restrictive short description-I don't like presuming things world is too big for me and I like to keep opportunities open as long as possible un til I am fully sure no opportunities are lost. That is my way of thinking and working which others may not.
 * In the same amount of rant I wrote on this talk page I could have developed some different article by now. Any ways thanks and warm regardsBookku (talk) 13:50, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Millions of Wikipedia articles are cohesive treatments of one topic. You appear to be arguing that that's too severe a constraint, despite the ease with which so many editors have conformed to it. It's as though you were arguing that the article about the planet Earth should be named Earth (word), that it should include material about soil (for which "earth" is a synonym), earthquakes, fracking, and pollution&mdash;while saying no more about either the word "Earth" or the planet Earth itself than defining "Earth is the third planet from the sun", giving the etymology, and mentioning that the Latin equivalent is "terra". Largoplazo (talk) 14:39, 21 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Strong keep but requires some work. --► Sincerely:  Sola Virum  04:35, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * What work? What work would you recommend so that it's about the word (as the title states, and in a way that doesn't leave the entire article as a violation of WP:NOTDICDEF) without veering off into other topics such as commentary on the treatment of women? See WP:COATRACK. Largoplazo (talk) 10:45, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The originator may have been trying to create an article along the lines of Nigger, but the WP:NOTDICTIONARY opening paragraphs of the page have managed to completely obscure that. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 12:30, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Expanding on your remark, the "N-word" itself, of course, is the subject of sociological focus: the taboos and controversies that have arisen surrounding its use. There's a great deal more to be said about the word than would be covered by a dictionary. The aurat article doesn't make it clear that this is true about "aurat". It's more dictionary coverage of the word followed by encyclopedic coverage of what it refers to rather than itself. Largoplazo (talk) 12:54, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It was some of the sources in the article that led me to that comment rather than the article itself. Particularly Mona Hassan's piece and the Geografia article about 1930s Malaysia. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 13:24, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * May be some of the discussions missing the some nuances but same may inspire some one to do more encyclopedic writing on the topic.
 * Any word special human physical attributes are and can be used in insulting manner, but some may be associating some of positive attributes in positive manner. If I start writing an article on word Paki from it's etymology side readers will start speculating if it is limited to dictionary purpose, when I cover usage of word as insult in some part of the world people will speculate to that limit, many Pakistanis suffering will put up those attributes, but some will be there who associate whole socio-cultural experience on more positive side. Any Indians can come and object on creation of cultural articles in the name of Pakistan claiming it to be just temporary political identity on unending time scale and geographically and culturally Pakistanis are Indians and they do not deserve separate article on culture. May be or may not temporary identity but it is there and separate articles on Pakistani culture do exist. Same way 'Aurat' is an identity used to be there in Turkey and Persia. Today may not be there but for encyclopedic purposes historical identity in Persia and Turkey remains notable.
 * Bookku (talk) 15:33, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , Thanks for enlightening me that cleanup is definitely not for the admins. I still firmly believe that the article should be kept. "Meanings of word belong in wikitionary"- that's true, but what about other information such as history, stigma and impacts? I see you have given some words as examples of words spoken by billions, to justify your opinion. I don't think adjectives and adverbs are good for examples in general cases, but I'm not that "good" in grammar so I'll just stay on what you have said here. Plain and short, I think this should be kept, because this article does what Wikipedia does, it is encyclopedic, and the subject is not a direct violation of WP guidelines. Deleting articles like Miss, Esquire, Aurat is not a viable thing. So I still believe it should be kept. Although some rewriting from independent perspective maybe needed. Thanks--Navinsingh133 (talk) 17:22, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , I was talking about how the article lacks some sources, and the fact that word "avret" (instead of avrat) doesn't exist in modern Turkish. --► Sincerely:  Sola Virum  06:20, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your information. I updated one statement in article from 'Turkish language' to 'Ottoman turkish language'. Pronunciations and roman script transliterations (spellings) might be differing at places etc. Wikipedians from respective regions contribution will help article to improve in content. Bookku (talk) 03:59, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Delete A nonsensical mess of gobbeldeygook. Jtrainor (talk) 09:44, 22 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment just for record: Since it is almost 6 days for second round of discussion. Want to cover some of the points just record sake. As such I would prefer more peaceful freer environment for encyclopedic writing which needs lot of it's own effort, that's why I self nominated the article and would prefer to go to Draft mode and rework peacefully. Working more on multiple aspect may be confusing some of the readers, but article is just start class needs to be understood. How so ever claimed to be messy or gobbledygook, does not reduce encyclopedic notability of any of the aspect. Which individual aspects should be there in single article and which to be forked out only arises when growth is not stifled.


 * One likes it or not Asians notably Persians and Ottomans of medieval times shared and influenced some cultural aspects right from Azerbaijan to South Asia


 * Since concept of 'Aurat' is distinct cultural milieu is distinct. South India that is south of South Asia women too do not share all aspects with north Indian 'Aurat'. When south Asian words like 'Daaman', 'aanchal' 'chunari', 'Purdah' come those are not just pieces of cloth but colloquial and literary metaphors do come in, explaining those in separate individual articles do not create a complete image of a human cultural entity. When one google 'Aurat' word for metaphors and tasawwoor (descriptions) lot many references will start becoming available in South Asian local languages.


 * Some one criticized at beginning of this weeks saying this is some neo feminist project (- a kind victim blaming). A culture which is multiple centuries old can not be neo feminist construct in itself. For neo feminist criticism there are dozens of other articles to work on, If some one had read previous discussion would have realized to the contrary. When I listed for Afd and working on the article one thing is very clear in my mind is of it's notability and several references waiting to get explored.


 * Thanks to every one for participating in discussion and bringing out various facets. Regards Bookku (talk) 07:20, 24 June 2020 (UTC)


 * DRAFTIFY to allow continued work, with the proviso that whatever comes out of it into article space later needs to be coverage of a cohesive topic (no WP:COATRACK), as I've discussed above, that conforms to requirements for main space articles (including no pure dictionary definitions) and with a title that matches the content. If the draft article is split into two or more articles while in Draft space or the content is, instead, merged appropriately into existing articles, so be it. Largoplazo (talk) 10:12, 24 June 2020 (UTC)


 * 1) What it seems to me is your main concern is of disambiguation. If really disambiguation is your main concern, why don't you take a proactive initiative in putting in disambiguation templates.
 * It is not once but two times, Once I myself tried to put in disambig info on page Aurat second time I placed on Aurat (word) too both times some one deleted it. Probably because there is no mention of Indonesian /Malaysian sense of word Aurat in article awrah. You will be having better references to include Indonesian /Malaysian sense of word Aurat in article awrah so do request  you to take initiative in this respect.
 * 2) I have not understood your principle of purging properly enough. If there is proper disambiguation in respect to Malaysia and Indonesian concerns why South Asia or for that matter Azerbaijan and Kurdish for matter be purged. Do you want to punish Azerbaijan and Kurdish  encyclopedic along with South Asia ? Why so ?
 * My point is if you purge South Asia plus Azerbaijan (probably and Kurdish) What remains is article of only 2 paragraphs about grammatical origin and that info can be included in article Awrah it self. Once South Asia plus Azerbaijan (probably and Kurdish) purged there is no case for the separate article. And I could foresee that will happen with word "word" in bracket hence I self initiated afd.
 * Article Aurat is primarily needed for taking socio-cultural distinct identity in South Asia in particular. If Azerbaijan (probably and Kurdish) would not have been there I would have happily agreed with title Aurat (South Asia) for my content. If don't Azerbaijan (probably and Kurdish) languages don't want to be on board with South Asians then article will remain for south Asians. I don't want to close opportunities of Azerbaijan (probably and Kurdish) languages. I hope you are getting my point. If you don't want to consider anything beyond your area then that is different issue.
 * So let me suggest you again probably your point is limited to disambiguation related to Malaysian and Indonesian language and you need to take proactive steps for disambiguation. Rest of the issues do not need to matter you much. IMHO.
 * Bookku (talk) 10:26, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Bookku (talk) 10:26, 24 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete: First of all, what kind of mess is the nominator trying to create here on an AfD; going on a rant and arguing with every voter. This is not the place to discuss your thesis. Closing admin needs to userfy the content and ask him to contribute to articles like Women in India or other like articles. I agree completely with Spinningspark's rationale here. The page creator had a particular set of idea on how to approach the subject, hence he creates a page, substantially keeps editing it, dislikes what other editors are contributing and decides to nominate the article he created so he can have a second round of this cycle. The quality and quantity of references in the article don't matter in a potpourri of a social topic like this. My vote is userfy the content, delete from mainspace, and ask the editor to contribute to other like articles. -  Harsh  18:28, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Has anyone referred the creator to WP:CONTENTFORKING? Largoplazo (talk) 22:35, 25 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for supporting deletion of the article, Wikipedia is collaborative project and creation and retention of the same can not be a responsibility of any single shoulder. By mistake if some read this discussion some day, may be there would be an odd person who will appreciate fact that the article creator could foresee what is going to happen and self initiated article for deletion, and may be he is good in fore seeing and may be what did he fore see space for distinct article may not be entirely wrong.
 * I will thank the user for at least admitting that there is quantity and quality references do exist so one logical inference is work done on the topic is well researched.
 * What do I request my critics is just not to stop at mansplaining, wikisplaining (I have useryfied content well in advance, I can fore see things better :) ) but to take an initiative and use this content in other articles wherever they find it that it suits better- since it is well researched it may benefit articles about women in South Asia which otherwise are not at their best, if they work harder and put information in their respective mother tongue wikis will be far better because condition of women related articles on those wikis they themselves would be knowing better. And they would also be knowing what is level of participation of women editors in north Asian Wikis in general and Hindi and Urdu in particular.
 * After this deletion closes I am going to conduct research on participation of women editors in deletion discussions. May be some one want to join me in the research.
 * True part: The page creator had a particular set of idea on how to approach the subject, hence he creates a page, substantially keeps editing it
 * Pointing out with due respect 'Absolute false accusation: dislikes what other editors are contributing Nobody else contributed is the problem. There are no reverts from my side on this article and not many in any other article.  Far from stopping any one I have sent too many invitations for editing the articles including this one And I express my regrets to those who come for reading and editing this article if they get shocked to read this deletion discussion, but I am simply helpless.
 * Last but not least, far from arguing with any one I welcomed all opinions even contrary to me. I have not even requested any one to change their opinions. I have specifically mentioned all my rant is just for record purpose. That too most of it I wrote either at beginning or end of 7 days.
 * And if any one expects not to answer even for record purpose, then I have no words no arguments.
 * Thanks any way to every one.
 * I know inconvenience to closing fellow if he at all decides to read all boring discussion but there is nothing much even to call storm in tea cup, closing user can simply delete article and move on. Thanks to him / her too.
 * Thanks any way to every one. once again. Bookku (talk) 02:11, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Copy paste is not the same thing as userfication. Copying within Wikipedia explains why copy paste is a bad thing.  It says If an article is being moved to userspace to avoid deletion (or to work on after deletion), the full history should be visible (restored if necessary) and then moved using the move button.  You could have done that in the first place instead of opening this mess of an AfD. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 08:03, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for response, Mostly my own contribution which I my self requested to be deleted I will save some where is but natural. Tell me what are technicalities I am not against fulfilling any technicality. Since you told I will do it again to complete technicality no issues. The thing is where I am single main contributor technicality should not be major issue.
 * When I brought in article I had some different expectations, that article will have easier search easier connect and more edits from different people who know the subject well and interested. I didn't expect enforcing unexpected article title who do not know the subject well enough. If wrong title changed perception, and article can't be added with other relevant info just because of title then one can not make article move request also and article becomes practically redundant then it is all proper to file afd. Some body likes it or not people file afd here because that gives main idea which way consensus is going. So one can decide well how much to spend further time on which aspects. That is everybody's prerogative to put article for afd and we are almost done through process. I thanked every one for participation and awaiting closure of discussion.

Thanks and regards Bookku (talk) 08:43, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Just for record, Now ref of the article has been mentioned in edit summary in user sandbox forked content to fulfill one technicality. Remaining technicalities also will do in separate sand box if needed after closure of this discussion Thanks Bookku (talk) 09:36, 26 June 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.