Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gandanta


 * 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 merge to Hindu astrology. The most substantive "keep" opinions have been rebutted, and the others offer scant evidence of notability, only assertions. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:28, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Gandanta

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:GNG due Lack of coverage in independent general media. Terminology from Fringe topic and violates WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Given source is book on WP:FRINGE theory (pseudoscience WP:PSCI). Venkat TL (talk) 07:32, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 07:32, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 09:53, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 09:53, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not FRINGE, but rather an integral part of Vedic astrology. Not a dicdef either so that rationale fails. Meets GNG as showm by sources;
 * Light on Relationships: The Synatry of Indian Astrology covers it over three pages
 * An Analysis of Longevity discusses it over three pages and elsewhere in the book
 * Light on Life: An Introduction to the Astrology of India ] discussed over multiple pages
 * Nakshatras: The Stars Beyond the Zodiac,
 * SpinningSpark 15:00, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * These books/publishers are neither WP:Mainstream nor independent of the subject (astrology), they are books on WP:FRINGE theory (Jyotisha i.e. Hindu astrology). Such sources cannot be used to gauge WP:GNG. Only those aspects with coverage outside the WP:NFRINGE sources are notable and this is not. Please see the old discussion at Articles for deletion/Trikasthanas (astrology). Venkat TL (talk) 15:08, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * How are you determining what is mainstream in astrology? It is as ridiculous to reject a book on astrology in an astrology article as it would be to reject a book on physics in a physics article.  Reliable sources on science topics are written by scientists, reliable sources on astrology topics are written by astrologers (unless we're discussing evidence for whether it actually works or not). SpinningSpark 16:13, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * "The idea that we should accept books about astrology written by astrologers because we accept books about physics written by physicists is not tenable. Physics is a generally accepted mode of inquiry with clear standards for truth and falsehood. Astrology is not." I request you to read the discussion at Articles for deletion/Trikasthanas (astrology). I could not explain it any better. In short, There is no mainstream in astrology. Only those aspects of Astrology that are covered in mainstream media (not related to astrology) are relevant enough to be covered on Wikipedia. And this is not one. Hence my nomination. Please read WP:NFRINGE too. Venkat TL (talk) 07:43, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 13:03, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep There are really enough results in Google Books that make this subject notable. Shankargb (talk) 15:47, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable per WP:GNG and does not violate Wp:FRINGE Lunacats (talk) 16:32, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @Shankargb, Lunacats passing mentions in books on fringe topic does not count as significant coverage that is needed for WP:GNG. If you have seen books on mainstream topics covering this in detail, then please share and I will withdraw my nomination. Venkat TL (talk) 19:09, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 19:11, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. I see no out-of-universe coverage, with the possible exception of, published by Arkana Publishing, an imprint of Penguin. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:38, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NFRINGE. If it’s “an integral part of Vedic astrology” it could perhaps be covered at Hindu astrology. Brunton (talk) 11:09, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete An "integral part" of a fringe subject is a fringe subject, and the available sources are not up to the standard we need for writing about such a topic from an outside, encyclopedic perspective. Sources have to be reliable in order to count towards GNG, and the Google Books results are particularly unimpressive in that regard. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:49, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Regarding the Arkana Publishing book mentioned above: the authors call themselves the only Westerner ever to become a licensed Ayurvedic physician and someone who has been studying and practising Vedic astrology since 1968. It's very definitely in-universe, not a view from outside. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 00:33, 15 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete From what I see on those books listed above ('kid born in ... is bad for himself or family'), this'll fail WP:MEDRS --Hemanthah (talk) 16:05, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, meets WP:GNG based on the sources linked by . SailingInABathTub (talk) 21:20, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   14:15, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Stub-ify per my vote at the other AFD, Glossary of Hinduism is not a good merge target and Glossary of Hindu astrology is a redlink. User:力 (powera, π,  ν ) 02:18, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 力 Powera we are here to discuss the notability of the article. If the topic fails to garner more than a passing mention then it clearly fails Wikipedia's notability criteria. That is a sign to delete. See WP:NOTDICT. Stubify is not listed as an option on WP:AFDR, because anyone can restore back the gibberish as had been done at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atmakaraka. Even to be kept as a stub, the topic has to qualify the notability criteria. Venkat TL (talk) 09:03, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge to Hindu astrology. To the extent that there is any content here, it belongs as a couple of sentences in the general treatment - where its status as a pseudo-science is clear - not as a stand-alone article without appropriate context. Modest Genius</b> talk 14:39, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree with VenkatTL's reply to SpinningsPark, and we are not a dictionary. I request the closing administrator to weight the editorial experience of the participants. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:54, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a plausible search term, so it shouldn't be a redlink. Encyclopaedists are educators, and we have a basic duty to debunk this kind of rubbish.  I mean, Wikipedia isn't Snopes, but we do have to cover fringe topics in order to protect people from woo and disinformation.  If it's not notable enough for its own article, we should redirect it to Hindu astrology and add a couple of lines to that article.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 14:16, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no such basic duty. Moreover it will be impossible to debunk stuff which the mainstream media believes is not worth talking about. Lack of reliable sources is the concern. Venkat TL (talk) 06:50, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That's right, it is not for Wikipedia to tell people what they should and should not believe. Our function is to provide factual information.  It is a fact that astrology exists, it is a fact that a lot of people follow it, and getting to the relevant point, it is a fact that "gandanta" is a feature of Hindu astrology.  Wikipedia can, and should, quite legitimately report that fact.  There is really no need for all the hand wringing about it all being just a heap of nonsense.  It is, but that's not our concern – soap operas and pokemon cards are nonsense as well, but we don't feel the need to have to constantly point that out to our readers. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 13:19, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Your opinion flies in the face of WP:NFRINGE, WP:Fringe theories and WP:MAINSTREAM. I suggest you read them. Venkat TL (talk) 13:30, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Not really. MAINSTREAM is an essay so I'm going to ignore that. NFRINGE defines fringe as an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field.  The particular field this belongs to is astrology.  I don't think this departs from the mainstream view of astrology at all.  So that leaves NFRINGE, but even if it fails that, it should still be merged somewhere per WP:PRESERVE and not deleted.  One can't define mainstream as "scientifically valid" unless one wants to delete all articles on religion as well.  If we allow articles on major religions, and sub-articles on their concepts and ceremonies, then their is no objective reason not to treat astrology in the same way. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 17:31, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Disagree on all points. Why are we not preserving the the Anti Vaxxer BS (in their POV) and loads and loads of QAnon BS (in their POV) by the same logic? Millions of people believe in them too. In any case, this fails Wikipedia's WP:GNG. Venkat TL (talk) 17:45, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Strawman argument. I haven't argued anywhere for preserving astrologers' (or anyone's) POV. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 17:49, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You are using Strawman too. Right from your first comment you have argued for using Astrology Books to gauge notability of astrology topics. That is the same as using Antivaxxer / QAnon blogs, for gauging notability of Antivaxxer/QAnon topics for Wikipedia. This article in question covers Astrology in Astrology POV using Astrology books. Venkat TL (talk) 18:19, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge per Modest Genius. There is not enough content on Google Books to pass WP:SIGCOV. However, the content does fall within the scope of Hindu astrology and should be included on that page per WP:FAILN. Heartmusic678 (talk) 14:33, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge to Hindu astrology per those above. There is enough content to support a mention, and we should describe what the word means, but this is not an independently notable topic. BD2412  T 20:00, 30 November 2021 (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.