This article was nominated for deletion on 3 August 2016. The result of the discussion was redirect to Alice Bailey#Esoteric astrology. |
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
"The neutrality of this article is disputed. See discussion on talk page." But talk page was there none. Was there evere one? Was it upsetting to someone? I find the article hard to understand, surely what an encyclopedia for general use says should be written in meaningful words. SilasW 20:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
The article's meaning may be more apparent after my reducing its florid language. The huge display of every type of astrology belonged, not here in a specific astrology's article, but in the main Astrology article, where indeed it can be seen.Sceptical-- SilasW 16:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Given no discussion on the template and given I could find nothing controversial about the article, I have removed it. Renee ( talk) 19:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I've added several references, a table, and some information on esoteric astrology. I'm not sure if the external link is valid but have left it in. Renee ( talk) 19:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I found this information added to the Esoteric Astrology page very interesting but am wondering where you got it from? For Wikipedia, all new information added needs a reliable and verifiable source. Also, I don't understand the first sentence -- can you please clarify? Thanks, Renee ( talk) 11:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
I would suggest this be merged to Alice Bailey given that everything that talks about it refers back to her, and everything that talks about her mentions this. Mangoe ( talk) 21:25, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Support merging what little, if anything, there may be of value to the Bailey article and then taking a big axe to that article, as it's horribly over-bloated and puffed up. Dominus Vobisdu ( talk) 22:06, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
This article was nominated for deletion on 3 August 2016. The result of the discussion was redirect to Alice Bailey#Esoteric astrology. |
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
"The neutrality of this article is disputed. See discussion on talk page." But talk page was there none. Was there evere one? Was it upsetting to someone? I find the article hard to understand, surely what an encyclopedia for general use says should be written in meaningful words. SilasW 20:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
The article's meaning may be more apparent after my reducing its florid language. The huge display of every type of astrology belonged, not here in a specific astrology's article, but in the main Astrology article, where indeed it can be seen.Sceptical-- SilasW 16:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Given no discussion on the template and given I could find nothing controversial about the article, I have removed it. Renee ( talk) 19:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I've added several references, a table, and some information on esoteric astrology. I'm not sure if the external link is valid but have left it in. Renee ( talk) 19:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I found this information added to the Esoteric Astrology page very interesting but am wondering where you got it from? For Wikipedia, all new information added needs a reliable and verifiable source. Also, I don't understand the first sentence -- can you please clarify? Thanks, Renee ( talk) 11:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
I would suggest this be merged to Alice Bailey given that everything that talks about it refers back to her, and everything that talks about her mentions this. Mangoe ( talk) 21:25, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Support merging what little, if anything, there may be of value to the Bailey article and then taking a big axe to that article, as it's horribly over-bloated and puffed up. Dominus Vobisdu ( talk) 22:06, 17 May 2012 (UTC)