Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conception chart

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 redirect to Astrology. —CYBERPOWER (Around) 03:33, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Conception chart

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

Unsourced astrology/folklore. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:41, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to either Horoscope or Astrology without prejudice to it becoming an article again if somebody can write it properly. The Google Books search shows that the term is used in astrology but the usage seems inconsistent. Of course it hard to tell as it is all mumbo jumbo but what is not clear is whether it is all (or predominately) the same mumbo jumbo, forming what might be a semi-coherent and even notable element in the history of astrology, or whether it is merely a vague term used by different astrologers however they please. The article is no help here at all. It does not pin down exactly what it is talking about, never mind reference it, even poorly. It discusses the origins and uses of the thing without saying what it is, and even fails to provide references for that, so we have nothing which might help us with the missing context. The best thing is to redirect it. It is practically an orphan article anyway, with only a single incoming link from a disambiguation page. If somebody wants to recreate it as an article later then they can. So long as they provide a coherent statement as to what it actually is and reference it in a way that shows that it is a longstanding idea in astrology then it could be OK but that would be a completely new article. There is nothing to rescue here that I can see. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:31, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Astrology. A mention of the term there is probably deserved, but should be sourced to a nominally objective view, such as that by James R. Lewis (scholar) (hopefully not confused with Jim Lewis (astrologer)). - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:33, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect without prejudice to recreation per User:DanielRigal Seraphim System ^(talk) 00:28, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 22:37, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 21:45, 30 January 2018 (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.