Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aurats


 * 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 delete.  Sandstein  10:53, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Aurats

 * – ( View AfD View log )

New page review: This article has two elements. The first is just wrong and unsupported by sources, and the second is already largely covered in another article, though there may be some scope for a partial merger.

The lede in this article defines ‘Aurats’ as women of a particular yet oddly mixed set of ethnic origins. The four sources provided to support this assert no such thing. They simply describe how the term ‘aurat/avrat’ has been used in different languages within specific Muslim societies to refer to women.

‘Aurat’ is a term which can be used to refer to women in general, and it has a range of meanings and connotations which are already discussed under the variant ‘Awrah’ which redirects to Intimate parts in Islam. The rest of this article kind of explores these aspects of the term, abandoning the anthropological/ethnic basis set out in the lede. The rest of the article seems to have been put together by googling the term and compiling snippets of sourced material together without any real coherence, I’m afraid it’s not much more than word salad with sources for each vegetable. Mccapra (talk) 03:32, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 03:32, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 03:32, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 03:32, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 03:32, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 03:32, 23 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment. Thanks for listing this one. Any reason why this article has been written as plural of an Indic language word? Seems very strange. Also, the disambiguation page has something very strange going on it lists a meaning to Aurat in Urdu that I think is vandalism. To the best of my knowledge Aurat means a woman in Hindi / Urdu. . I went in and fixed it fwiw. Ktin (talk) 03:47, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi as far as I can tell it is to do with a complex set of disambiguations and redirects which meant that the basic term ‘Aurat’ was already being used as a title for something else, but it is hard to make sense of it all. Mccapra (talk) 05:33, 23 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment. This article does not appear to be particularly clearly written. If this is a real topic, the article needs to be cleaned up. Also, I think we dealt with a similar article a few months ago in Articles for deletion/Aurat (word). The result was no consensus, but ultimately the page was moved to Draft:Aurat (word). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:49, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: Previously I had self nominated article for AfD discussion and subsequently transferred to draft and split. After draft split some one prematurely brought back to main namespace. Personally I don't have any issues if it is sent back to draft namespace. Unless original title space of word Aurat gets allotted to this article will take quite long time for development. IMHO Bookku (talk) 05:03, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes it was moved back into mainspace by a blocked sockpuppet for some reason. Mccapra (talk) 05:38, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zoozaz1  talk 00:28, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete No indication that this is a coherent concept that is supported by the sources given. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:29, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment just for record: This comment is just for record for academic and research consideration in posterity and no other purpose. 
 * In my personal point of view bringing in article in article namespace when Wikipedian community is mentally unprepared for and this AfD discussion both are untimely. Since as a case study I wanted to discuss some related issues like suppression of titles leading to systemic bias at policy village pump before bringing this draft to article namespace. Now I will do that some point of time after closure of this AfD.
 * In brief three different kind of users are uncomfortable with this article.
 * The first impatient secular category which insist to define career before baby grows, same people will criticize any article first as coat rack of hair and skin but not ready to acknowledge it as 'body' acknowledging it as a prospective living body and cultural body are not even distant considerations for them, If baby starts coming from the side of head they will say it is all head, if baby comes out from side of feet they will say it's only feet, after baby comes out a little more they will say it's just naked and throw it out with bath water. If some one writes about Japanese umbrellas first in article about Japanese people they will say it's all umbrella nothing to do with Japanese If some one adds about Kimonos they will immediately start crying foul no no it is just coatrack. They just won't be able to fore see article developing into Japanese people step by step. At least this AfD creator has experience of adding content and expanding articles, most other deletionist won't have it and will still consider themselves morally superior. If one detaches from Wikipedia and just hear it will find the whole thing amusing and funny.
 * Now the next category opposing the article is religious but prudish just speaks about rules and all but internally they are uncomfortable to find in some part of the world women are called  with the same words which define private body parts in other part of the world.
 * For example there nothing wrong with words that refer to private human body parts if used respectfully, but if used pejoratively then their is problem. Real issue is in intention. These category of editors need to understand whatever way expression Aurat entered in usage in certain global geographies for 'women' as of the today those geographies use it with respect though issues of misogyny and patriarchy are interwoven.
 * Now unfortunately it is true that in Medieval era the invading aristocracy and their forces used word 'Aurat' for women of general classes pejoratively is true and common minimum link between all women called as Aurat Whether Azeris, Kurdish or South Asian. Those who have idea of and know that uncomfortable history, patriarchy and misogyny will get discussed at some point of time in this article would be uncomfortable with existence of such article though that is not the only reason of existence of this article. Even if Azeri and Kurdish and medieval era persian and Ottoman Turkish refs take time to come by as a student of South Asian studies I can confirm that there are more than enough reliable resources that discuss about Aurat as women again newly prudish South Asians too are taking time to support the article is another issue.
 * Through RfCs on other project page, I have already proven Muslim women participation on Wikipedia projects is almost not existent on most Wiki projects including English Wikipedia. Other women editors largely refrain and restrain from Islam and Muslim related topic and progressive literary sources Muslim male wikipedians too visit randomly once in while when they will come across this article see it's scope positively and work to expand is a long time process specially when original main title of the article Aurat is encroached upon and suppressed in process of continued systemic bias.
 * Last but not least with above explanation it is not difficult to understand, one of the comment in deletion proposal insists to compares wome Intimate body parts equal to women and argues article is not needed, does not come as a surprise at all.
 * Well as of now, I am not expecting or requesting any positive action with present stiffing Wikipedia culture at all absolutely. Not even relisting of the article for more discussion in any way what so ever. This comment is just for record for academic and research consideration.
 * Thanks Bookku (talk) 09:22, 5 October 2020 (UTC)


 * In your first comment above you said so if you already felt it should be deleted and sent to draft all I'm doing in nominating it here is agreeing with you. If you still want to work on the draft I think draftify would be a good outcome for this discussion.  If you are not interested in working on it any more there's no point in draftifying it and it should just be deleted.  The reasons for nominating it are not as you have set out in your note.  The reasons are 1. It makes statements that are not supported by sources and 2. in the sections where it makes statements that are related to sources, it just randomly collects snippets of text to make something that does not, overall, make any sense. If this is an encyclopaedic topic it needs more work before it can come into mainspace.  This is, as you indicated, a draft, and as such it doesn't belong here.  Thanks Mccapra (talk) 09:41, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , it's a little difficult to tell whether this most recent comment is one that you wanted responses to but you've posted it publicly so I might as well reply. This prose style, and the prose of the article itself, are big reasons why the article is being considered here.  Please don't think that I'm intending this as denigration or insult but it is very difficult to parse as English prose.  It borders on word salad, frankly.  I can get a sense of what this means: ...same people will criticize any article first as coat rack of hair and skin but not ready to acknowledge it as 'body' acknowledging it as a prospective living body and cultural body are not even distant considerations for them... (probably something like: "...people will call an article a WP:COATRACK prematurely..."). Phrases like, The first impatient secular category which insist to define career before baby grows... and If baby starts coming from the side of head they will say it is all head..., on the other hand, suggest that English is not your first language and you are trying to translate concepts from another language overly-literally.  While the English Wikipedia is open to, and encourages contributions from, those whose first language is not English, competence in English is very highly recommended in order to communicate effectively both in articles and in discussions such as this one.  You may want to try adding this article to whichever Wikipedia project is in your native language first and then bring it here once it has been accepted there.  That strategy usually results in fewer frustrations and misunderstandings all around. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:36, 5 October 2020 (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.