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.
Advocacy article with no evidence of notability. The first two sources are not reliable. The third source is essentially primary in this context (being used to as "proponent" of the conspiracy theory) and does not by my reading express opposition to the scientific method.
* Pppery *it has begun...23:24, 5 August 2022 (UTC)reply
No, because there are multiple reliable sources debunking the concept of astrology provided there. This article does not have that, and the fourth source you just added, in addition to being primary, isn't even talking about the same thing that you claim the third source is a "proponent of". This article is
WP:SYNTH of unrelated sources to make a point, and
astrology is not. (Nor are
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments valid at AfD anyway)
* Pppery *it has begun...23:37, 5 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Also, if you think this subject is appropriate for an article, but disagree with the content of it, you should discuss that on the talk page instead of nominating it for deletion.
Partofthemachine (
talk)
23:44, 5 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep Come on man, it is trivial to find good, peer-reviewed publications on this topic
[1][2][3][4]. What this article needs is throwing out the rubbish sources currently present, integration of some solid academic sources, and then a rewrite that gets away from the finger-wagging "PSEUDOSCIENCE!" focus; this concept is principally one of traditional knowledge preservation and post-colonial cultural integration.
This is an indigenous science project. We are ill served with a knee-jerk stub culled from newspaper headlines. --Elmidae (
talk ·
contribs)
07:50, 7 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep I'm going to come back later today and fix this article. This article as it stands now is just lazy and offensive. Dr vulpes(
💬 •
📝)17:47, 7 August 2022 (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.
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.
Advocacy article with no evidence of notability. The first two sources are not reliable. The third source is essentially primary in this context (being used to as "proponent" of the conspiracy theory) and does not by my reading express opposition to the scientific method.
* Pppery *it has begun...23:24, 5 August 2022 (UTC)reply
No, because there are multiple reliable sources debunking the concept of astrology provided there. This article does not have that, and the fourth source you just added, in addition to being primary, isn't even talking about the same thing that you claim the third source is a "proponent of". This article is
WP:SYNTH of unrelated sources to make a point, and
astrology is not. (Nor are
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments valid at AfD anyway)
* Pppery *it has begun...23:37, 5 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Also, if you think this subject is appropriate for an article, but disagree with the content of it, you should discuss that on the talk page instead of nominating it for deletion.
Partofthemachine (
talk)
23:44, 5 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep Come on man, it is trivial to find good, peer-reviewed publications on this topic
[1][2][3][4]. What this article needs is throwing out the rubbish sources currently present, integration of some solid academic sources, and then a rewrite that gets away from the finger-wagging "PSEUDOSCIENCE!" focus; this concept is principally one of traditional knowledge preservation and post-colonial cultural integration.
This is an indigenous science project. We are ill served with a knee-jerk stub culled from newspaper headlines. --Elmidae (
talk ·
contribs)
07:50, 7 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep I'm going to come back later today and fix this article. This article as it stands now is just lazy and offensive. Dr vulpes(
💬 •
📝)17:47, 7 August 2022 (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.