Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unmaad yoga (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. There is overwhelming consensus here that this article should not be kept. Less clear is what should be done with it. Both userfy and redirct are plausible options with reasoned arguments behind them, but it would be a stretch to say there was consensus for anything but a straight delete, so that's what I'm calling this. There is mention made of a large body of other work by the same editor; This AfD was narrowly framed on this single article, so no action or recommendation on all the others. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Unmaad yoga (astrology)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Barely notable sub-topic within the fringe field of Hindu Astrology. There is absolutely nothing which might give any kind of indication of the importance of this topic even within a somewhat dubious field.

The article is borderline incomprehensible and apparently includes a great deal of WP:SYNTH speculation gleaned from scant sources including a few translations printed by esoteric/occult publishers. Salimfadhley (talk) 11:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Salim Saheb, you seem to be in a great hurry to delete the 160 odd pages created by me. I am not aware of your knowledge in Astrology and Philosophy.I agree there is hardly any present editor/contributor who has mastered Indian philosophy and Hindu astrology, otherwise he/she would have willingly contributed towards improvement of these pages. By the way, most of the pages already stand reviewed. As I have already told you, I am not prepared to submit explanations because I can explain things only to those who understand these subjects.Do not delete and make Wikipedia poor.Aditya soni (talk) 11:55, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not 'in a great hurry' to do anything, however I have noticed some (but not all) of the articles you have submitted appear to fall short of the standards required by Wikipedia, the main ones being WP:N, WP:V, WP:OR and WP:RS. Wikipedia review is not final, so it may have been that whoever accepted these articles in the past did so without understanding the applicable standards. Articles that cannot ever be brought to these standards should not be on Wikipedia. AFD discussions are anything but hurried. Often the authors of articles manage to improve articles enough for the articles to be kept, that is what I suggest you do. --Salimfadhley (talk) 12:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Another non-notable topic filled with fringe claims by this editor.
 * Further, on a more "why does this editor insist on continuing to violate basic policy and making work for everyone else" aspect, the editor is still claiming in the wikipedia tone that someone suffers from mental illness because of where the planets are. This falls afoul of both WP:MEDRS and WP:FRINGE. I have previously explained to the editor that his beliefs system should not be written as fact in the wikipedia tone: User_talk:Aditya_soni, yet they insist on continuing this. Most of Aditya's articles should be deleted as they are poorly written and make numerous fringe claims, Second Quantization (talk) 12:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete As above, one in a long series of fringe articles by this editor. --Seduisant (talk) 15:04, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nominator. Article is largely incomprehensible and poorly sourced.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:16, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Move to user space - then work with the author. There are approximately 160 similar articles written by this same editor that have the exact same issues.  This is a much broader problem that has to be attended to.  This clearly represents an enormous amount of good-faith effort on behalf of the author - comparable to writing an entire book!  I'd feel bad about simply deleting them all without seeking some alternative action.  Deleting them all is probably "The Right Thing" from a pure Wikipedia perspective - but it seems like a violent act to the author to do that - and I think we Wikipedians are better people than that.  Aside from anything else, it is our failing as a community that we did not spot these articles as the first handful of them appeared.   We did not offer advice on how to write them correctly (or whether to write them at all) in the earliest stages - before it got so far out of hand.  So I recommend that we:
 * Immediately move all 160 of the offending articles into user-space.
 * Offer one-on-one guidance with the author to either (a) clean them up and get them peer-reviewed so that they may be returned to mainspace or (b) move them off Wikipedia entirely - and, perhaps with help, into a Wikia site or somewhere similar where they may be appreciated by those who wish that kind of thing.
 * Review the situation in one month.
 * But for sure, these can't stay in article space as they are right now. SteveBaker (talk) 15:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * @SteveBaker, this is an excellent suggestion. I feel for the author who has expended a great deal of energy and expertise in this work (however inappropriate for Wikipedia). I was concerned that this content might be better presented in some other venue. It seems to be the kind of original scholarship that the occult/esoteric press would be happy to publish. Furthermore there are plenty of appropriate online venues where this editor could continue to publish without having to worry about Wikipedia policies. --Salimfadhley (talk) 15:47, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * An appropriate venue would be astrowiki or some such, Second Quantization (talk) 18:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Support suggestion above, out of kindness; however, it concerns me that the editor on an article-creation spree is not a newbie. AGF is not a suicide pact.  Mini  apolis  23:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Author is using Wikipedia as a promotional vehicle for his views on astrology. OR, fails WP:NFRINGE, states nonsense as fact in Wikipedia's voice. Dougweller (talk) 18:59, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: It is wrong to suggest that I am using Wikipedia as a promotional vehicle for my views on astrology. I have merely brought to Wikipedia the information which is already available outside Wikipedia. No where have I added my personal opinions on these topics culled from the ancient texts.Aditya soni (talk) 10:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Yoga (Hindu astrology) Yoga is an important concept in Hindu astrology, but does Unmaad yoga deserve an article on its own, IMO no due to little "significant coverage". A list of Yogas will be a good idea. Redtigerxyz  Talk 05:53, 24 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Support suggestion above And some of the content in this article may be taken to the Yoga article. True, astrology is a pseudoscience. But it is a highly influential pseudoscience at least in India so it has earned a little notability. I dont think the author is trying to promote astrology anymore than he is promoting the topic of his other articles. Nor does the article(at least in its current form) present astrological concepts as facts. Note that Wikipedia has copious content on the world's major religions even though they may be bollocks. Jayakumar RG (talk) 12:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hindu astrology isn't at AfD here. Unmaad yoga is. You need to argue why this concept is notable, not why astrology is notable. Second Quantization (talk) 20:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not holding that Unmaad Yoga is notable. That is why I supported Redtiger's suggestion. You can read his comment. Jayakumar RG (talk) 00:54, 28 August 2014 (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.