Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angle (astrology)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 and redirect to Horoscope#Angles. There was initially disagreement about whether to let fringe sources establish notability of this fringe concept, but after the redirection was proposed, nobody disagreed with it. As to whether to delete the content first, I can't give the initial "keep" opinions much weight, because they were more about the notability of the concept, and not really about the merits of the existing content. And with respect to that, the nominator's argument that the content is unsourced OR has remained unrebutted, and accordingly it merits oblivion. Sandstein 17:37, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Angle (astrology)

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Angle (astrology) (edit | 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)

Barely sourced, full of original research. Salimfadhley (talk) 11:32, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Meyer, Michael R. (2000). The Astrology of Relationship. iUniverse. pp. 59–62. ISBN 9780595089345.
  2. ^ Wilson, James (1996). A Complete Dictionary of Astrology. Health Research. p. 6. ISBN 9780787309732.
  3. ^ Goldsmith, Barbara (2008). Astrology Made Easy, A Handy Reference Guide. p. 322. ISBN 9780473141066.
  4. ^ Hacket, James Thomas (1836). The Student's Assistant in Astronomy and Astrology. Bray and King. p. 150.
  5. ^ Hodges, Henry Clay (1903). Science and Key of Life, Planetary Influences. Vol. 3. Astro Publishing Company. p. 33.

SailingInABathTub (talk) 19:36, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - These sources are all written by astrologers, who are practicing a belief system, and therefore have a vested interest in astrology, completely failing WP:INDEPENDENT. Their publishers are also closely affiliated to the subject (they're all occult/new age publishers) and, quite apart from their lack of independence, have no reputation for fact checking at all, nor any established system of editorial oversight (peer review, etc.). They're just not reliable.
I'm not sure whether this topic passes WP:GNG (please do look for other sources), but these are not the sources that will prove it (and certainly not sources that should actually be used in the article!). I would expect keep !voters to cite at least a few truly reliable (in this case, academic) sources. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:15, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can't strike them, but I acknowledge that ref #1 and #3 are self-published and therefore unreliable. SailingInABathTub (talk) 21:04, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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 that the 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 ☉) 21:15, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derivative house --Salimfadhley (talk) 21:34, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While a fringe topic, there's plenty of non-fringe source coverage of the topic. I just did a quick search for recent stuff (and just picked the first thing that popped up on Newspapers.com and ProQuest that had the subject). Of course, a lot of the coverage is going to be of the type of popular magazine type coverage, since astrology isn't a science, but more of a cultural philosophy or...something that isn't based on any form of evidence. Anyways, see here:
And I also found something rather interesting. I think it's one of the earliest critical works on astrology. It's a series of essays published in a book by Richard A. Proctor covering the mythological claims and history of the practice of astrology. He notes throughout that it's bunk, but it's meaningful cultural bunk that has had consistent impact on society and culture for centuries. And the book is from 1877. So, that's cool.
Anyways, as with most of astrology, it's fringe nonsense that, nonetheless, has been notable fringe nonsense that the general public has bought into for whatever reason for centuries. I don't, however, think the four sub-topics of angles need their own articles until they are properly referenced and concisely discussed in a manner that deserves an independent article from this one. And they don't appear to have that yet. SilverserenC 22:45, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What would be a reliable source for a non-scientific cultural and society subject? Culture magazines, of which women's magazines are included, seem like fine sources for that sort of topic. Since you just need sources about its history and how it's used, not about it doing anything. Since it doesn't do anything, it's cultural mysticism. SilverserenC 05:51, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • We shouldn't base encyclopedia articles on "sources" that are either deluded or grifting. Horoscopes are either one or the other. Scrolling down that Bustle link gives more headlines: "Libras Will Relate To These 25 Quotes"; "Manifesting Your Dreams During An Eclipse Is A Bad Idea" ("Because eclipses help us to align with our fates..."). Good grief. Cultural and social topics deserve better coverage than supermarket tabloids or their digital equivalents. XOR'easter (talk) 20:42, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that magazines are absolutely not to be mistaken for reliable sources. This should be really obvious, but they have no reputation for fact-checking, nor any system of editorial oversight. Zarka 2009 mentions the word "angle" only once, and not with the meaning given to that term in this article. Again, this topic may well pass WP:GNG, but these are not the sources that will prove that. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:00, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agree that this is better treated in horoscope. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:17, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to Horoscope where the information is already presented in context. LizardJr8 (talk) 02:38, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Redirect to Horoscope as this is an unnecessary fork, per above. Also, the current content, in addition to being rather limited, would fail WP:V (the sole source is used for one author's statement on the matter), so there's not much reason to merge it - sources found above, if they are reliable (of those in Silver seren's post, the first three are some lifestyle pop magazine sections, which are not really acceptable sources for writing an encyclopedia (Wikipedia is not "Pop Culture Wiki", obviously). No comment on the rest, although these seem to offer a more general overview, so are probably good indications that this is better organised and presented to the reader with sufficient context, which is better done in articles which cover the subject more broadly, like the suggested target. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:12, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with Redirect, and move of any notable content to Horoscope#Angles. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:19, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Merge/Redirect. While astrology is bullshit, it is notable bullshit, and the details of notable bullshit are sometimes often notable. Whether this is kept as-is or merged/redirected up the hierarchy to a more appropriate article, is fine either way. Deleting the article serves no purpose, except to break attribution or remove useful redirects etc. if it is merged/redirected.--Jayron32 17:52, 19 November 2021 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Angle_(astrology)&oldid=1057286851"