Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeeva Samadhi


 * 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. The Bushranger One ping only 00:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Jeeva Samadhi

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )


 * Delete This article is orphaned and has no references. It is not clear what purpose it serves and is written like an essay with an unexplained list. Dazedbythebell (talk) 22:29, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Content appears to be a bit like an essay, the list doesn't make much sense for me. The article has been around for quite a while, leading me to believe the topic has some relevance, but it will need a fundamental re-write and some decent sources to be encyclopedic. {{{sub|C}}  A S U K I T E   T} 23:36, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge with Samadhi and Samadhi (shrine) and "Jeeva Samadhi" can be redirected to "Samadhi". The term is quite a common one. Some cursory Google search would show you that. The stuff-not-making-sense to delete voters is probably their incompetency. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 07:19, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:49, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't see how the article can be merged with Samadhi or Samadhi (shrine) because so far (after seven long years) it does not have a single statement that can be verified. I know what a samadhi is, it is a tomb or shrine for a deceased person highly regarded in Hinduism. But this article is categorized as Tamil History and Tamil People only. It makes remarks that seem to be from word of mouth rather than books. The list is unlinked and unreferenced. It seems to serve no purpose, at least for the uninitiated reader. I would agree to merge this article if I could see something in it that could be used. While the word "jeeva samadhi" can be found on the internet, the word "jeeva" simply means body, or embodied soul. So it is a samadhi for a body. But the more general term is samadhi. To see that the common word in Hinduism is simply "Samadhi" see the Commons category by that name. Dazedbythebell (talk) 11:34, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You yourself just now said that Samadhi is a tomb and then why do you say that whole article is unverifiable? That verifies the first line of the article. Please note that verifiability has nothing to do with bunch of weblinks present at the bottom of the article. I also hope you do realize that we will not be deleting any article only because it's wrongly categorized. The lead can be merged to the "Samadhi" article whereas the list can be merged with "Samadhi (shrine)" article. Also note that AFDs are not for cleaning up articles. Also, other wikis are as reliable as this wiki. So if you are showing us something on commons, that's useless. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 06:15, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't agree the first line can be verified, at least by me: "Jeeva Samadhi or Adhishtanam or Brindavanam is the tomb of a Hindu Spiritual Guru or a saint." For Adhishtanam, I get "Basis; a principle in which some other principle inheres" and "One who is the root cause (and foundation) of the Universe" . Lines like "The seed cells in the body never get damaged" are so strange and unexplained I cannot see how this can simply be 'cleaned up.' If it could be cleaned up, a Hindu expert like yourself would have done so. Are lines like this to simply be ported to Samadhi as is without references? Is the list to be moved to Samadhi (shrine) without references? How is that a solution? Dazedbythebell (talk) 12:51, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, being unreferenced doesn't mean its not verifiable. Being unreferenced doesn't mean its not notable. If at all you were looking properly, you would find all the necessary references within Wikipedia's other articles itself. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 04:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps this article could be renamed Samadhi (Tamil people). Dazedbythebell (talk) 12:54, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Funny! Why do you think Samadhis of Tamil people should have a different dedicated article? Since when did Dnyaneshwar become Tamil? §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 04:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Because Tamil people is how the article categorizes itself. You seem to feel it could be merged. So is the article to simply be tagged "merge"? Who is going to merge it? As it stands it is orphaned, redundant, and written as an essay with unsubstantiated metaphysical opinions. I am surprised you don't begin to improve it, since you feel it is an okay article. Dazedbythebell (talk) 14:51, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isn't compulsory. Wikipedia doesn't have deadlines. I don't have to do anything; especially when ignorant people come up and start tagging articles because it doesn't make sense to them from their western view points. And that doesn't happen like once or twice a month with WP:INDIA but almost everyday. Your ignorance of the subject has been reflected quite well over here. So has been your ignorance of how Wikipedia works. Without a single constructive edit to the article since you AFDed it, you have shifted your opinion from delete to keep with rename and you base that on the categorization of the page, which existed even at the time you AFDed it. Also you are assuming bad faith on my part and other WP:INDIA editors by questioning who will be merging the articles. We have approx 200 articles currently up for merger since their AFD. You can invest your energy worrying about those. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 03:58, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Please no personal attacks. My vote remains to delete. There are many excellent India articles on Wikipedia. Sai Baba of Shirdi is a GA article for instance, and has plenty of references. I don't think you are admitting how strange this article is written. "It is believed that this force remains forever and the time limit for the Samadhi status depends upon the saint's bio-magnetic strength". Believed by whom? What is bio-magnetic strength? What are seed cells? If I am ignorant, I would hope this article would inform me. I don't see what part of it could be merged, as none of it is referenced. I do know that a samadhi is a tomb. I think that's the most often used term. That's all I know. Merging this article with another would make more sense if there was something in the article that was cited, and if it wasn't so strangely written. A person has to read it to see what I mean. Maybe we should ask for mediation, as you and I don't seem to agree, and we seem to be the only interested editors here. Dazedbythebell (talk) 11:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Here are the reasons I would give for deletion of this article, from the list or reasons at WP:Deletion policy:
 * 6. Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources
 * 7. Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed
 * Also the list seems unusable because it does not list articles, and it has no references. Therefore nearly anyone could add anything to the list.
 * If there was cited information, it could be merged. But there is almost nothing that can be merged except part of (but not all of) the first sentence. Dazedbythebell (talk) 11:37, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the article could be redirected to samadhi (shrine) (rather than being deleted) and the name jeeva samadhi added to the names samadhi and samadhi mandir there. But without the uncited content. Would you be open to that idea? Dazedbythebell (talk) 11:43, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Regarless of "merge" or "delete", I have nothing against keeping a list of Samadhis in India, but I do not know, and it is not made clear, as to how representative or partial the current list is. Also in the title, the "jeeva" part, seems to make the article specific to the teachings linked to agasthiar.org. If not, we would need to have more sources, independent of agasthiar, referring to samadhis as "jeeva samadhis". But even so, mention of bodies that do not decay after death, notions of magnetic fields acting as the life force in the corpse and seed cell ideas, that appear to be the original research of the writer, have to go, unless they can be written in the form "according to A, (an accepted as reliable source), so and so". No such text given as factual information is permitted in Wikipedia. Hoverfish Talk 15:00, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

If you look at the list of samadhis in the article you will note that they are mostly in the state of Tamil Nadu. For that reason I think it is not a neutral representation of samadhi shrines in India. Dazedbythebell (talk) 16:25, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * From the looks of it, I see that such a list would be a huge project, and then the hardest question would be which of these samadhi mandirs would be important or notable enough to include. So under this title and these circumstances, the present list is unusable. Hoverfish Talk 20:51, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete The second and third line of the article can provide a starting point for an article, but the rest of it is plain op-eds introduced by different editors. At this point, this article does more to misinform readers than any encyclopaedic purpose. Even if refs are found (and they can be found deeply embedded in scholarly works) the article needs to be written from scratch, not from a smorgasbord of opinions and listings dubiously sourced. WP:TNT applies. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  14:11, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete I agree with SpacemanSpiff. If there is anything important that can be said about the present title, the article should be written from scratch. Hoverfish Talk 15:28, 21 October 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.