- 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 House (astrology). There is near unanimity that a standalone article is inappropriate. The argument to merge is undercut by concerns with the content that currently exists. Vanamonde ( Talk) 18:58, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Derivative house
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Derivative house ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Entirely unsourced article. No indication of notability. Salimfadhley ( talk) 11:28, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Salimfadhley ( talk) 11:28, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. ☿ Apaugasma ( talk ☉) 13:39, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Keep, passes WP:GNG due to being covered by multiple sources. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]
References
- ^ Louis, Anthony (1998). Horary Astrology Plain & Simple, Fast & Accurate Answers to Real World Questions. Llewellyn Publications. pp. 41–42. ISBN 9781567184013.
- ^ Bills, Rex E. (1974). The Rulership Book. American Federation of Astrologers. p. xi. ISBN 9780866904315.
- ^ Rushman, Carol (2002). The Art of Predictive Astrology, Forecasting Your Life Events. Llewellyn Publications. p. 13. ISBN 9780738701646.
- ^ Noah, William (2005). Astrology Of America: The Purpose-driven Meaning Of America's Astrological Chart. iUniverse. pp. 218–224. ISBN 9780595339044.
- ^ Falconer, Kim (2005). Astrology and Aptitude, How to Become What You Were Meant to Be. American Federation of Astrologers. p. 176. ISBN 9780866905367.
SailingInABathTub ( talk) 20:16, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
- None of the sources listed above are reliable. They are either self-publishing outfits or in-universe astrology publishers. GNG requires coverage in reliable sources, not sources full stop. AleatoryPonderings ( ???) ( !!!) 20:45, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
- I can't strike it, but I acknowledge that ref #4 is self-published and therefore unreliable. SailingInABathTub ( talk) 21:02, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
- I agree with AleatoryPonderings that these sources, as having a vested interest in astrology as a belief system, are not independent and therefore cannot satisfy WP:GNG. A longer back-and-forth about this here. ☿ Apaugasma ( talk ☉) 21:42, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
- Keep.
WP:Fringe makes a clear distinction between "notability" and "acceptance". Statements about the the _truth_ or science of astrology can not be sourced to be credulous astrologers, but the policy makes it clear that such sources are not disqualified from being reliable sources for determining the notability of the belief, and describing the details of the belief.
ApLundell (
talk) 20:46, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
- This misrepresents
WP:NFRINGE. That guideline does in no way imply that our
general notability guidelines, which ask for
significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject
, would not apply for fringe. On the contrary, it explicitly states thatthe notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents.
What the 'Notability versus acceptance' section in WP:NFRINGE actually says is that the fact that a theory is not accepted should not itself be a reason to declare it non-notable. That's of course not to be reversed into the claim that all not-accepted theories are notable, just because they are mentioned in non-independent, unreliable sources. ☿ Apaugasma ( talk ☉) 21:42, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
- This misrepresents
WP:NFRINGE. That guideline does in no way imply that our
general notability guidelines, which ask for
- Comment - please also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angle (astrology) -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 21:32, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
- Merge to House (astrology). I see no reason for this to have an independent article from the parent topic at the moment. Build up a section on derivative houses in the parent article with reliable source coverage and then there'd be an argument for splitting it off. But there's nothing here and no reason shown for having it be separate right now. Silver seren C 22:53, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
- Delete since the topic is already well covered in House (astrology) and Horoscope. LizardJr8 ( talk) 02:40, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- Delete as a completely unsourced fringe article that reads as WP:NOTHOWTO, merge into House (astrology) if cited. Bakkster Man ( talk) 14:30, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- Merge/Redirect per Sliver seren. Deleting the article serves no purpose, except to break attribution or remove useful redirects etc. if it is merged/redirected. It's a likely search term/link target and redirecting to the better article is useful here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayron32 ( talk • contribs) 17:55, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- Redirect to House (astrology). Nothing establishes notability, and the content is completely uncited and not worth preserving by a merge. XOR'easter ( talk) 20:58, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been linked to from a new section at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Astrology AfD's. jp× g 10:30, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
- Merge, with House (astrology), per Silver seren ( talk · contribs). SailingInABathTub ( talk) 15:04, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To merge....or redirect....or delete, that is the question.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Missvain (
talk) 04:37, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
- Delete The topic fails
WP:NFRINGE and
WP:GNG due to the lack of reliable sources independent of the subject discussing it in detail.
WP:FRIND states, quote:"
In particular, the relative space that an article devotes to different aspects of a fringe theory should follow from consideration primarily of the independent sources. Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles.
Merge is not acceptable as this is a completely unsourced WP:FRINGE article that reads as WP:NOTHOWTO. Just as the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angle (astrology), a delete/Redirect to House (astrology) is acceptable to me. Venkat TL ( talk) 11:44, 1 December 2021 (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.
- 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 House (astrology). There is near unanimity that a standalone article is inappropriate. The argument to merge is undercut by concerns with the content that currently exists. Vanamonde ( Talk) 18:58, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Derivative house
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Derivative house ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Entirely unsourced article. No indication of notability. Salimfadhley ( talk) 11:28, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Salimfadhley ( talk) 11:28, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. ☿ Apaugasma ( talk ☉) 13:39, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Keep, passes WP:GNG due to being covered by multiple sources. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]
References
- ^ Louis, Anthony (1998). Horary Astrology Plain & Simple, Fast & Accurate Answers to Real World Questions. Llewellyn Publications. pp. 41–42. ISBN 9781567184013.
- ^ Bills, Rex E. (1974). The Rulership Book. American Federation of Astrologers. p. xi. ISBN 9780866904315.
- ^ Rushman, Carol (2002). The Art of Predictive Astrology, Forecasting Your Life Events. Llewellyn Publications. p. 13. ISBN 9780738701646.
- ^ Noah, William (2005). Astrology Of America: The Purpose-driven Meaning Of America's Astrological Chart. iUniverse. pp. 218–224. ISBN 9780595339044.
- ^ Falconer, Kim (2005). Astrology and Aptitude, How to Become What You Were Meant to Be. American Federation of Astrologers. p. 176. ISBN 9780866905367.
SailingInABathTub ( talk) 20:16, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
- None of the sources listed above are reliable. They are either self-publishing outfits or in-universe astrology publishers. GNG requires coverage in reliable sources, not sources full stop. AleatoryPonderings ( ???) ( !!!) 20:45, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
- I can't strike it, but I acknowledge that ref #4 is self-published and therefore unreliable. SailingInABathTub ( talk) 21:02, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
- I agree with AleatoryPonderings that these sources, as having a vested interest in astrology as a belief system, are not independent and therefore cannot satisfy WP:GNG. A longer back-and-forth about this here. ☿ Apaugasma ( talk ☉) 21:42, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
- Keep.
WP:Fringe makes a clear distinction between "notability" and "acceptance". Statements about the the _truth_ or science of astrology can not be sourced to be credulous astrologers, but the policy makes it clear that such sources are not disqualified from being reliable sources for determining the notability of the belief, and describing the details of the belief.
ApLundell (
talk) 20:46, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
- This misrepresents
WP:NFRINGE. That guideline does in no way imply that our
general notability guidelines, which ask for
significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject
, would not apply for fringe. On the contrary, it explicitly states thatthe notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents.
What the 'Notability versus acceptance' section in WP:NFRINGE actually says is that the fact that a theory is not accepted should not itself be a reason to declare it non-notable. That's of course not to be reversed into the claim that all not-accepted theories are notable, just because they are mentioned in non-independent, unreliable sources. ☿ Apaugasma ( talk ☉) 21:42, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
- This misrepresents
WP:NFRINGE. That guideline does in no way imply that our
general notability guidelines, which ask for
- Comment - please also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angle (astrology) -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 21:32, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
- Merge to House (astrology). I see no reason for this to have an independent article from the parent topic at the moment. Build up a section on derivative houses in the parent article with reliable source coverage and then there'd be an argument for splitting it off. But there's nothing here and no reason shown for having it be separate right now. Silver seren C 22:53, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
- Delete since the topic is already well covered in House (astrology) and Horoscope. LizardJr8 ( talk) 02:40, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- Delete as a completely unsourced fringe article that reads as WP:NOTHOWTO, merge into House (astrology) if cited. Bakkster Man ( talk) 14:30, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- Merge/Redirect per Sliver seren. Deleting the article serves no purpose, except to break attribution or remove useful redirects etc. if it is merged/redirected. It's a likely search term/link target and redirecting to the better article is useful here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayron32 ( talk • contribs) 17:55, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- Redirect to House (astrology). Nothing establishes notability, and the content is completely uncited and not worth preserving by a merge. XOR'easter ( talk) 20:58, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been linked to from a new section at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Astrology AfD's. jp× g 10:30, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
- Merge, with House (astrology), per Silver seren ( talk · contribs). SailingInABathTub ( talk) 15:04, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To merge....or redirect....or delete, that is the question.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Missvain (
talk) 04:37, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
- Delete The topic fails
WP:NFRINGE and
WP:GNG due to the lack of reliable sources independent of the subject discussing it in detail.
WP:FRIND states, quote:"
In particular, the relative space that an article devotes to different aspects of a fringe theory should follow from consideration primarily of the independent sources. Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles.
Merge is not acceptable as this is a completely unsourced WP:FRINGE article that reads as WP:NOTHOWTO. Just as the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angle (astrology), a delete/Redirect to House (astrology) is acceptable to me. Venkat TL ( talk) 11:44, 1 December 2021 (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.