Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Svarbhānu


 * 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   keep. With thanks to DanielRigal and others for the improvements.  Sandstein  06:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Svarbhānu

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Incoherent essay with no clear context, just a jumble of strange assertions such as "Svarbhānu ushered Kālanemi through the galaxy" which we're somehow meant to pull together into a coherent whole. Impossible for the average WP reader to make any sense of this article. I can't see any way of cleaning it up. andy (talk) 23:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Reserving judgement for now . I agree with the nomination up until the last bit. The article is completely incomprehensible to a lay reader such as myself. The reason I deproded it is that it was rated mid importance by WikiProject Hinduism, so clearly it must make some sense to people who already understand the subject area. There may well be a valid subject lurking in here. While I can't see how to clean it up myself, it might not take too much work for somebody who understands this subject to provide the contextual information needed to enable the rest of us to make sense of it. Lets see if anybody can sort it out. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions.  —DanielRigal (talk) 00:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. A Hindu Asura (demonic deity) traditionally held responsible for solar eclipses. Check out the 654 references in a Google Books search for a quick proof of notability. Article needs tidying up so as to be intelligible, but that's a content issue. Holly25 (talk) 00:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I have used your explanation as a replacement introduction to the article and it helps a lot. I also added the article to the category for Asuras. I notice that it is not on List of Asuras. Is that an oversight?
 * I notice from a very cursory look at the list of books you provide that several of them equate Rahu and Svarbhanu. Are they really the same and, if so, should we be looking to merge or redirect this article to Rahu?
 * Another thing I think we need help with is in gutting out any original research or improper synthesis. Is the alleged Norse connection really valid? --DanielRigal (talk) 10:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: I very much doubt if there's anything in the Norse connection. The author is a fringe theorist who tends to throw in all sorts of loose associations like this as if they were facts. See the current AfD at Articles for deletion/New Testament as political satire and check out the author's Talk page. I think it would be extremely unwise to take anything in this article as true without carefully checking the references. IMHO the only way to be sure it's safe is a 100% rewrite by a subject expert, which is why I suggested deleting it as unsalvageable. andy (talk) 10:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not an expert, but from what I can gather, Svarbhanu (also transliterated Swarbhanu) is much older than Rahu - it exists in the earliest Vedic texts, whereas Rahu only appears much later. The identification of the two seems to be a theory of some scholars based on the similarity of their roles, not something ever stated explicitly in the texts - and as the article says, one text says Svarbhanu split into Rahu and Ketu. So it's best to keep them separate, like the Greek Ares and its Roman equivalent Mars (mythology). It should be in the list of Asuras though. Holly25 (talk) 15:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: Svarbhanu seems to be a Vedic predecessor of Rahu, like god Shiva inherits the characteristics of the Vedic Rudra.-- Redtigerxyz Talk 13:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Now that we are clear that this is a genuine subject related to but distinct from Rahu, and article is being drastically improved, I am happy to call it a keep. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - a lot of good work's been done on it, still needs some more probably but definitely seems notable. Plenty of references in google books even apart from what's in the article already, and seems to be distinct from Rahu.-- Beloved Freak  21:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per Redtigerxyz. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:59, 21 January 2010 (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.