Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Garbhadhan (astrology)


 * 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 "keep" arguments are weak. The three "needs work" / "rename" opinions make no arguments and must be discounted. The two other "keep" opinions advocate a rewrite to make clear the topic is a superstition, but that is much easier said than done: a well-sourced article treating this belief from a neutral "out of universe" perspective would probably be widely supported, but that is not the article we have before us. There are also several "merge" proposals, but these do not address the core argument of the nominator: that this content makes factual claims of a medical nature (i.e., that conception on certain days results in infants of specific genders), and that such content needs WP:MEDRS-compliant sources. It is not contested that this article contains no reliable sources for these claims, instead referencing only a book about astrology. Consequently, the core policy WP:V mandates deletion of this content. This does not prevent the recreation of this article if this can be done based on reliable sources.  Sandstein  14:11, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Garbhadhan (astrology)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails WP:NFRINGE. WP:TNT eligible article with massive violation of WP:MEDRS. On the basis of WP:Fringe theory of astrology, the article makes numerous claims (in Wikipedia voice) about Human reproduction, sexual behavior and child physiology. Eg. "Having sex at X hrs will produce Y type of child", "If at the time of commencement of menses the lagna for that moment is aspected by Mars the woman will have sexual union with an evil person; if aspected by the Sun, with a noble ruler and if aspected by Saturn, with a servant." Only source are from unreliable fringe theory books and publishers. The creator is blocked for multiple copyright violations. Venkat TL (talk) 11:12, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Gem of a Quote from article.
 * "if the woman conceives after the appearance of menses
 * • on the 4th night she will bear a short-lived son,
 * • on the 7th night a barren daughter,
 * • on the 11th night a wretched ugly daughter,
 * • on the 13th night an evil-minded and disgraceful daughter" Venkat TL (talk) 11:12, 23 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 11:12, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 11:12, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 11:12, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 11:12, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 11:12, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete with or without redirect to another article (Hindu astrology suggests itself). Nothing in the page is clearly written or adequately sourced, so nothing needs to be preserved by merging. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:30, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to existing article Garbhadhana: that deals with the religious and ritual aspects of the concept, whereas this one deals with the astrology, so does not duplicate the other. The sources given don't seem to be accessible online but hard-copy sources are acceptable, I believe. The nom dismisses them as "fringe", but the tone of the nomination implies that the nom is likely to dismiss any sources dealing with astrology as "fringe", so it looks like a Catch-22. The criticisms on medical grounds are oddly misplaced: this doesn't purport to be a medical article but to give the details of the astrological theory. Ingratis (talk) 14:19, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @Ingratis this title with disambiguation included is not a plausible search term, hence the redirect is unnecessary and will be a candidate for deletion (according to WP:R). Regarding the comments about nom, please know that nom is a Hindu and has a decent understanding of Hindu Astrology to be able to separate the wheat from chaff and decide what aspect of astrology is fit for a general encyclopedia. An interested reader is better served reading the topic elsewhere. The article fails WP:NFRINGE by a mile. Venkat TL (talk) 14:38, 24 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete without redirect. I don't see how "(astrology)" accompanying Garbhadhan is a plausible search term. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 15:34, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Genuinely unsure of the answer here, but isn't a redirect helpful in order to avoid breaking the links from articles that currently link to this one? There are many, and sending those links to Garbhadhana instead seems appropriate. But if the problem of redlinks would be resolved without a redirect, no need for one, as I agree the parenthetical phrase is not a plausible search term. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:49, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @LEvalyn, After removing this link from the template at the bottom, there are 0 articles that links to this. See here. So I think this is not a concern. Venkat TL (talk) 06:12, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @Venkat TL, ah, thank you! I hadn't noticed that, just noticed it was odd how many incoming links there were... Totally agreed there is no need for a redirect now. ~ L 🌸  (talk) 06:14, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:47, 30 November 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Clarkcj12 (talk) 04:45, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep or (perhaps preferable) Merge to Garbhadhana. Certainly clean up is required, but there is clearly a large literature on the astrological dimension of this Samskara and that should be reflected on wiki (in the same way that we reflect other traditions of astrology). I do not think that many readers who were not already disposed to treat Hindu astrology as true would mistake the article's claims for information on how reproduction etc actually work, but, if the article is giving that impression, that requires correction, not deletion. No evidence has been provided that the citations are "from unreliable fringe theory books and publishers" (Chaturvedi (1977) is published by Motilal Banarsidass). Rather, the problem seems to be that these are largely primary sources, but said primary sources tend to confirm that this information is not fringe, since they're major Hindu texts like Brihat Jataka, Utpala (astronomer), Jataka Parijata, Jataka Tattva. The nominator's claim to be able "to separate the wheat from chaff and decide what aspect of astrology is fit for a general encyclopedia" is not an acceptable ground for deletion, since we are essentially asked to take their word for it - what sources should a reliable passage on Hindu astrological ideas about Garbhadhana be based? Furius (talk) 19:31, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: but needs work. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:36, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, needs work but is relevant to its topic chain. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:22, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Rename it as Superstitions in Indian astrology, or merge and redirect to Superstitions in India.
 * &#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39; (talk) 04:49, 13 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. Utter nonsense that fails WP:NFRINGE and is written in an WP:INUNIVERSE style. Seems unsalvageable. Modest Genius talk 14:20, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astrology-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03</b> ( d  c̄ ) 00:24, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's obvious the article is discussing astrology. Nobody will take it as medical advice. A few qualifying words might help make it even clearer, and remove the in-universe aspect. . How will people know astrology is nonsense if they don't see what it is?  Because we tell them so? Seeing it for oneself is much more convincing. Renaming as "Superstitions in Indian astrology" is an error, for this is only one small part of it. Just listing it there is insufficient coverage of what millions of people believe. Even calling it Superstitions in Indian astrology is a little absurd, since the whole system is superstition.   I don't   think astrology is Fringe--it's pseudo science, a system that pretends to be based on science but isn't.   DGG ( talk ) 01:16, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong delete violation of WP:NFRINGE, WP:MEDRS. Notice that the sources almost all come from Raman Publications and Motilal Banarsidass without external sources regarding material that is practically plagiarized from them. Doczilla  @SUPERHEROLOGIST 08:33, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. I pretty much agree with DGG on this. There seems to be a concerted attack on astrology articles at the moment.  My opinion is that we should treat them the same as religious articles.  Many religions also make outlandlish claims, but an encyclopaedia can and should cover them.  Even my ancient Collins National Encyclopedia which I bought as a child and runs to less then 500 pages finds space for entries on astrology and all the signs of the zodiac.  MEDRS is inappropriate to apply to such articles, they are not making medical claims per se.  Mary, mother of Jesus is claimed to have given birth as a virgin.  That claim is sourced to New Theology Review published by the Catholic Theological Union.  Hardly a MEDRS, yet we are comfortable having it in the encyclopaedia.  In the same vein we shouldn't reject sources on astrology because they are believers or promoters of astrology.  We can still report the claims of astrology.  I also agree with DGG that we should reject the FRINGE argument.  FRINGE largely applies to scientific claims.  We can easily judge whether a scientific claim or theory is fringe by whether or not it conforms to the mainstream scientific view.  It is as ridiculous to call astrology fringe as it would be to call Catholicism fringe because it does not conform to mainstream science.  Fringe religion would be a religion that did not conform to mainstream religion.  Likewise fringe astrology is astrology that does not conform to mainstream astrology.  There has been no argument advanced that this particlular article falls into that category. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 17:39, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge into Garbhadhana. Looking at these two articles, they seem to both be about the exact same subject, so I'm a bit confused by them currently being two separate articles. There is some information in this article that could be useful to include in the other one, which is why I'm going with merge instead of delete here, but someone who is actually familiar with this topic (unlike me) is going to need to sift through the information in this article and figure out what is worth merging into the other article and what should be discarded altogether. --Zander251 (talk) 04:52, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - violation of WP:NFRINGE, WP:MEDRS. I agree with Doczilla about the sources, as well. - Naushervan (talk) 05:18, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge into Garbhadhana. The 16 Saṃskāra are obviously notable in their own right. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:56, 19 December 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.