Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trikasthanas (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. SpinningSpark 15:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trikasthanas (astrology)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This essay seems to be composed of equal parts Original Research and high fantasy. None of the sources seem to back up any of the claims made in the article and the subject does not seem to have been relevant to any serious scholarship that I can find. Furthermore it is written in such dense and incomprehensible prose that at first I thought the entire thing was a hoax. Salimfadhley (talk) 22:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete:. Encyclopedia is a reference work containing a comprehensive summary of information either from all branches of knowledge or from a particular branch of knowledge. The information can appear to be too technical for most not aware of the particular branch of knowledge this article deals with. This article deals with a particular aspect of Hindu astrology and does not describe a work or element of fiction. Agreed that this article does contain intricate detail but that detail is meant for those who have a specific interest in Hindu astrology, it is not meant for those who are not acquainted with Hindu astrology. Encyclopedia is certainly not a compendium of short-stories, and it does not teach. The listed sources are all reliable and the relied upon texts are available online, in the market and libraries. This article in any case does not present fringe theories and is based on reliable sources and is not a hoax, and is not an original research.Aditya soni (talk) 04:09, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Astrology isn't a branch of knowledge since it is nonsense. We cover it only in wikipedia so as to summarise the important elements of pseudoscientific beliefs people have. Only those aspects with coverage outside the astrology sources are those that are notable (see WP:NFRINGE), Second Quantization (talk) 12:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I love how you insult other people's beliefs, assert your belief they should be deleted, and then make the best argument for keeping them. Yes, we document pseudoscience, and that is what the article does. Keep Anarchangel (talk) 03:08, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Saying astrology is nonsense is now an unpardonable offence because some people believe in it? I fail to see how that's my problem. Calling something pseudoscience is also normative, but you happily say it too. As I've already outlined, in-depth reliable sources, independent of the promulgators, is what is required, Second Quantization (talk) 15:59, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question AFD discussions are about notability - which of the sources you provided goes to the heart of this subject's notability? Can you provide any texts that we can verify? --Salimfadhley (talk) 11:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFRINGE. Also, makes numerous WP:MEDRS claims that certain planetary combinations mean certain people " will find difficulties in earning a living and may even resort to begging, develop suicidal tendencies, remain discontented, conspire to kill or destroy others, steal others’ wealth and resigns himself to fate". This guy is so far in his/her own bubble of nonsense that they even refuse to debate it ("by habit I do not indulge in discussions"). Even if it was notable, it would need to be completely rewritten since it's written like crap, Second Quantization (talk) 12:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unreadable Bhny (talk) 18:22, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - This stuff MAY be good information but the way it's written is unacceptable. It seems to portray astrology as objective fact. While there are some topics in astrology that are noteworthy but esoteric (see work done on malefic planets, it must be done in an encyclopedic style. It is clear that the article creator knows about a lot about this topic but they have to do a better job of conveying their knowledge in an encyclopedic and comprehensible manner. Alicb (talk) 21:16, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Alicb's comments above, spot on analysis. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:06, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, in-universe texts from inside astrology, which is not a branch of knowledge, are not acceptable as encyclopedia articles. And yes, it's also unfortunately unreadable. Bishonen | talk 20:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete As I've said elsewhere, presenting this as factual is simply not acceptable. And as Bishonen says, it's unreadable. Delete as hopeless. Dougweller (talk) 18:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: Friends. You may be or may not be aware of astrology taught and followed in the West but you seem to be unfamiliar with Hindu astrology as well which branch of knowledge is legally acknowledged as a science (and therefore, no fringe theories are involved, and it is not non-sense or hoax) in India. Hindu astrology, which is nakhshatra-based, works on three basic assumptions – 1) the Sign-wise Equal house division of the fixed Zodiac or Rasi-chakra and 2) planetary combinations called Yogas which can be good or bad in results and given proper names, and 3) the planetary periods called Dashas. The ancient Hindu Sanskrit texts while economizing on words merely describe the many astrological principles as also the numerous planetary combinations and their results; they do not offer any explanation whether brief or detailed. The many later translators – cum – commentators did not attempt to provide the missing explanations, retained the original descriptions etc., illustrating them with birth-charts of persons of their own times. It is from these reliable texts that I have drawn needful information. Slightly cleaning up this page I have tried to make it readable but proper understanding of this topic is possible only if one knows this subject. Keeping in view the particular terminology and expression used by the relied upon authors I cannot further simplify this draft. You must co-relate this topic with other wiki- linked topics for better grasp of the intricacy so noticed. I have not presented this topic as factual. If I have erred do edit the unacceptable points. Thanks.Aditya soni (talk) 08:45, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Bhāva These are NOT fringe theories or hoaxes. These are real concepts in Hindu astrology. However, they do not notable enough to be standalone articles. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Concepts within hindu astrology are fringe in the same way that creationism is fringe. They may have many adherents in the public sphere, but within science they are rejected. Second Quantization (talk) 15:49, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.