56:. 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.
779:
1034:. 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.--
976:(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 (
980:, 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.
864:
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.
592:
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
835:
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
794:
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
684:
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
631:
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
770:
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.
493:
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.
209:
554:
874:
412:
166:
744:
360:
203:
330:
277:
662:
685:
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:
257:
429:
474:. 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
386:
766:
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
113:
98:
1056:
576:
139:
134:
629:
the notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents.
989:
143:
126:
395:
369:
343:
905:
646:
508:
294:
93:
86:
17:
224:
879:
I agree that magazines are absolutely not to be mistaken for reliable sources. This should be really obvious, but they have
795:
concisely discussed in a manner that deserves an independent article from this one. And they don't appear to have that yet.
191:
972:
as this is an unnecessary fork, per above. Also, the current content, in addition to being rather limited, would fail
572:
447:
170:
107:
103:
709:
724:
1089:
185:
40:
1071:
1047:
1018:
993:
985:
960:
939:
910:
847:
826:
806:
674:
651:
602:
513:
451:
299:
269:
249:
68:
860:
on "sources" that are either deluded or grifting. Horoscopes are either one or the other. Scrolling down that
181:
1014:
935:
842:
822:
801:
670:
568:
443:
265:
245:
130:
1085:
870:
550:
471:
36:
231:
785:
981:
956:
900:
641:
598:
503:
289:
217:
1040:
775:
767:
739:
694:
1010:
977:
931:
837:
818:
813:
796:
699:
666:
608:
392:
366:
340:
261:
241:
122:
82:
74:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1084:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
197:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
866:
753:
714:
589:
546:
530:
1067:
952:
894:
635:
594:
497:
283:
59:
1035:
888:
887:
with the meaning given to that term in this article. Again, this topic may well pass
612:
486:
309:
880:
729:
542:
475:
160:
973:
479:
757:
531:
absolutely necessary in order to write about the topic in an encyclopedic way
1061:
1006:
969:
948:
927:
534:
336:
53:
817:, a womens gossip magazine, be a reliable source for astrology concepts?
627:, would not apply for fringe. On the contrary, it explicitly states that
881:
no reputation for fact-checking, nor any system of editorial oversight
462:- These sources are all written by astrologers, who are practicing a
695:"Your Descendent Sign Can Reveal A Lot About Your Romantic Life"
1080:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1055:
Note: This discussion has been linked to from a new section at
478:
at all, nor any established system of editorial oversight (
951:
where the information is already presented in context.
156:
152:
148:
891:, but these are not the sources that will prove that.
883:. Zarka 2009 mentions the word "angle" only once, and
593:
the belief, and describing the details of the belief.
216:
1057:
Knowledge:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Astrology AfD's
312:
due to being covered in multiple independent sources.
745:
710:"How to Let Astrocartography Guide Your Wanderlust"
563:I can't strike them, but I acknowledge that ref #1
632:mentioned in non-independent, unreliable sources.
414:The Student's Assistant in Astronomy and Astrology
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1092:). No further edits should be made to this page.
663:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Derivative house
276:Note: This discussion has been included in the
256:Note: This discussion has been included in the
611:. That guideline does in no way imply that our
278:list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions
567:are self-published and therefore unreliable.
431:Science and Key of Life, Planetary Influences
258:list of Religion-related deletion discussions
230:
8:
725:"Changing your address may change your life"
388:Astrology Made Easy, A Handy Reference Guide
114:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
240:Barely sourced, full of original research.
434:. Vol. 3. Astro Publishing Company. p. 33.
275:
255:
485:I'm not sure whether this topic passes
321:
836:do anything, it's cultural mysticism.
628:
616:
1005:, and move of any notable content to
926:agree that this is better treated in
537:) and indeed anything by someone who
7:
978:Knowledge is not "Pop Culture Wiki"
708:Brown, Maressa (January 22, 2020).
533:. Self-published books (e.g., from
482:, etc.). They're just not reliable.
723:Meyer, Karen (November 16, 1977).
362:A Complete Dictionary of Astrology
24:
470:in astrology, completely failing
738:Zarka, Philippe (January 2009).
99:Introduction to deletion process
693:Kahn, Nina (February 9, 2021).
525:in the absence of sources from
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
781:Myths and Marvels of Astronomy
1:
1072:10:29, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
1048:17:52, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
1019:14:19, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
994:05:12, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
961:02:38, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
940:05:17, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
911:21:00, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
875:20:42, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
848:05:51, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
827:05:09, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
807:22:45, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
675:21:34, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
652:21:15, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
613:general notability guidelines
603:20:46, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
577:21:04, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
555:20:31, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
529:the fringe bubble, which are
514:21:15, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
452:19:36, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
411:Hacket, James Thomas (1836).
332:The Astrology of Relationship
300:13:38, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
270:11:32, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
250:11:32, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
69:17:37, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
476:reputation for fact checking
428:Hodges, Henry Clay (1903).
385:Goldsmith, Barbara (2008).
89:(AfD)? Read these primers!
1109:
329:Meyer, Michael R. (2000).
758:10.1017/S1743921311002602
740:"Astronomy and astrology"
365:. Health Research. p. 6.
1082:Please do not modify it.
776:Proctor, Richard Anthony
617:significant coverage in
417:. Bray and King. p. 150.
32:Please do not modify it.
466:, and therefore have a
359:Wilson, James (1996).
171:edits since nomination
858:encyclopedia articles
539:believes in astrology
87:Articles for deletion
786:G. P. Putnam's Sons
607:This misrepresents
50:delete and redirect
856:We shouldn't base
768:Richard A. Proctor
1074:
752:(S260): 420–425.
621:sources that are
569:SailingInABathTub
444:SailingInABathTub
302:
272:
123:Angle (astrology)
104:Guide to deletion
94:How to contribute
75:Angle (astrology)
67:
1100:
1054:
1038:
1007:Horoscope#Angles
947:and redirect to
909:
903:
897:
845:
840:
804:
799:
789:
761:
734:
719:
704:
650:
644:
638:
615:, which ask for
543:reliable sources
512:
506:
500:
436:
435:
425:
419:
418:
408:
402:
401:
382:
376:
375:
356:
350:
349:
326:
298:
292:
286:
235:
234:
220:
164:
146:
84:
66:
64:
57:
54:Horoscope#Angles
34:
1108:
1107:
1103:
1102:
1101:
1099:
1098:
1097:
1096:
1090:deletion review
1036:
966:Delete/Redirect
901:
895:
892:
843:
838:
802:
797:
774:
737:
722:
707:
692:
642:
636:
633:
566:
504:
498:
495:
468:vested interest
441:
440:
439:
427:
426:
422:
410:
409:
405:
398:
384:
383:
379:
372:
358:
357:
353:
346:
328:
327:
323:
290:
284:
281:
177:
137:
121:
118:
81:
78:
60:
58:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1106:
1104:
1095:
1094:
1076:
1075:
1051:
1050:
1021:
996:
982:RandomCanadian
963:
942:
920:
919:
918:
917:
916:
915:
914:
913:
877:
851:
850:
830:
829:
792:
791:
790:
764:
763:
762:
735:
720:
705:
687:
686:
678:
677:
656:
655:
654:
625:of the subject
582:
581:
580:
579:
564:
558:
557:
519:
518:
517:
516:
483:
472:WP:INDEPENDENT
438:
437:
420:
403:
396:
377:
370:
351:
344:
320:
319:
315:
314:
313:
303:
273:
238:
237:
174:
117:
116:
111:
101:
96:
79:
77:
72:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1105:
1093:
1091:
1087:
1083:
1078:
1077:
1073:
1070:
1069:
1064:
1063:
1058:
1053:
1052:
1049:
1046:
1045:
1044:
1039:
1033:
1029:
1025:
1022:
1020:
1016:
1012:
1008:
1004:
1000:
997:
995:
991:
987:
983:
979:
975:
971:
967:
964:
962:
958:
954:
950:
946:
943:
941:
937:
933:
929:
925:
922:
921:
912:
907:
904:
898:
890:
886:
882:
878:
876:
872:
868:
863:
859:
855:
854:
853:
852:
849:
846:
841:
834:
833:
832:
831:
828:
824:
820:
816:
815:
810:
809:
808:
805:
800:
793:
788:. p. 100-101.
787:
783:
782:
777:
773:
772:
769:
765:
759:
755:
751:
747:
746:
741:
736:
732:
731:
726:
721:
717:
716:
711:
706:
702:
701:
696:
691:
690:
689:
688:
683:
680:
679:
676:
672:
668:
664:
660:
657:
653:
648:
645:
639:
630:
626:
624:
620:
614:
610:
606:
605:
604:
600:
596:
591:
587:
584:
583:
578:
574:
570:
562:
561:
560:
559:
556:
552:
548:
544:
540:
536:
532:
528:
524:
521:
520:
515:
510:
507:
501:
492:
488:
484:
481:
477:
473:
469:
465:
464:belief system
461:
458:
457:
456:
455:
454:
453:
449:
445:
433:
432:
424:
421:
416:
415:
407:
404:
399:
397:9780473141066
394:
390:
389:
381:
378:
373:
371:9780787309732
368:
364:
363:
355:
352:
347:
345:9780595089345
342:
339:. pp. 59–62.
338:
334:
333:
325:
322:
318:
311:
307:
304:
301:
296:
293:
287:
279:
274:
271:
267:
263:
259:
254:
253:
252:
251:
247:
243:
233:
229:
226:
223:
219:
215:
211:
208:
205:
202:
199:
196:
193:
190:
187:
183:
180:
179:Find sources:
175:
172:
168:
162:
158:
154:
150:
145:
141:
136:
132:
128:
124:
120:
119:
115:
112:
109:
105:
102:
100:
97:
95:
92:
91:
90:
88:
83:
76:
73:
71:
70:
65:
63:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1081:
1079:
1066:
1060:
1042:
1041:
1031:
1027:
1023:
1011:Bakkster Man
1002:
998:
965:
944:
932:Hemiauchenia
923:
884:
861:
857:
819:Hemiauchenia
812:
780:
749:
743:
730:Star-Gazette
728:
713:
698:
681:
667:Salimfadhley
658:
622:
618:
585:
538:
526:
522:
490:
467:
463:
459:
442:
430:
423:
413:
406:
387:
380:
361:
354:
331:
324:
316:
305:
262:Salimfadhley
242:Salimfadhley
239:
227:
221:
213:
206:
200:
194:
188:
178:
80:
61:
49:
47:
31:
28:
661:- See also
623:independent
480:peer review
204:free images
867:XOR'easter
811:Why would
609:WP:NFRINGE
547:XOR'easter
391:. p. 322.
317:References
62:Sandstein
1086:talk page
970:Horoscope
953:LizardJr8
949:Horoscope
928:horoscope
896:Apaugasma
637:Apaugasma
595:ApLundell
590:WP:Fringe
535:iUniverse
499:Apaugasma
337:iUniverse
308:, passes
285:Apaugasma
37:talk page
1088:or in a
1032:Redirect
1003:Redirect
990:contribs
778:(1877).
619:reliable
541:are not
489:(please
167:View log
108:glossary
39:or in a
659:Comment
527:outside
460:Comment
210:WP refs
198:scholar
140:protect
135:history
85:New to
1037:Jayron
999:Delete
945:Delete
924:Delete
889:WP:GNG
862:Bustle
839:Silver
814:Bustle
798:Silver
700:Bustle
565:and #3
523:Delete
487:WP:GNG
310:WP:GNG
182:Google
144:delete
1028:Merge
1001:with
844:seren
803:seren
715:Shape
225:JSTOR
186:books
161:views
153:watch
149:links
16:<
1024:Keep
1015:talk
986:talk
974:WP:V
957:talk
936:talk
902:talk
871:talk
823:talk
682:Keep
671:talk
643:talk
599:talk
588:.
586:Keep
573:talk
551:talk
505:talk
448:talk
393:ISBN
367:ISBN
341:ISBN
306:Keep
291:talk
266:talk
246:talk
218:FENS
192:news
157:logs
131:talk
127:edit
992:)
968:to
885:not
754:doi
232:TWL
165:– (
52:to
1062:jp
1059:.
1043:32
1017:)
1009:.
988:/
959:)
938:)
930:.
893:☿
873:)
825:)
784:.
748:.
742:.
727:.
712:.
697:.
673:)
665:--
634:☿
601:)
575:)
553:)
545:.
496:☿
491:do
450:)
335:.
282:☿
280:.
268:)
260:.
248:)
212:)
169:|
159:|
155:|
151:|
147:|
142:|
138:|
133:|
129:|
1068:g
1065:×
1030:/
1026:/
1013:(
984:(
955:(
934:(
908:)
906:☉
899:(
869:(
821:(
760:.
756::
750:5
733:.
718:.
703:.
669:(
649:)
647:☉
640:(
597:(
571:(
549:(
511:)
509:☉
502:(
446:(
400:.
374:.
348:.
297:)
295:☉
288:(
264:(
244:(
236:)
228:·
222:·
214:·
207:·
201:·
195:·
189:·
184:(
176:(
173:)
163:)
125:(
110:)
106:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.