Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Federation of Astrologers


 * 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   keep. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 19:21, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

American Federation of Astrologers

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Doesn't appear to meet WP:ORG. Other content issues are apparent, I .. must admit that I was frankly surprised to find that this wasn't the organization's About page, not including the separate advertisement which now leads the description of the organization. j⚛e deckertalk 18:54, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 31 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - Organized in 1938, this seems to be perhaps the longest-running astrological association, per THIS. I'm strongly leaning towards Keep from the outset, will search for sources... Carrite (talk) 01:19, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Seems to be the subject of a book, Edna Carr Edmonson's A 50-year history of the American Federation of Astrologers. Could be an internal history, but definitely something mineable for verifiability. Carrite (talk) 01:22, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Seems also to be a book publisher, see for example: James H. Holden, A History of Horoscopic Astrology. Carrite (talk) 01:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak delete - if someone finds sources that cite this organization, I'm willing to change my vote, but as it stands, the organization in question is simply not notable. That does not mean that they are not important to someone.  Being a publisher, or a baker, or a candle stick maker, does not make you notable.  Having folks write about you does.  Nickmalik (talk) 14:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 08:54, 11 June 2014 (UTC)



Okay. I first googled "AFA wiki" to find a disambiguation page that did not list the AFA at all. I made a suggestion that it be listed.

Then I thought of googling, "American Federation of Astrologers wiki" and found this page, which surprised me. Then I was further surprised to find it was listed for deletion.

The American Federation of Astrologers, like them or not, approve of them or not, are the largest and oldest astrological society in the world. Since 1950 they have published some 640 books, all of them on astrology. They have held annual or bi-annual conferences since the late 1930's, they have a membership in the thousands. If you want I can phone them and get an exact number for you. They have published a monthly newsletter for some decades - ink on paper. The AFA were an outgrowth of the American Academy of Astrologicans, founded in 1916, and the Astrologer's Guild of 1926, both long gone.

Wiki's blatant hostility to astrology is well-known, though here and there I am starting to see cracks in the facade.

Please end this discussion by keeping the entry for the American Federation of Astrologers. It easily qualifies for it own unique Wiki page.

Thank-you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.15.102.104 (talk) 16:12, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Having read Wiki's rules for significant organizations, let's continue:

The applicable rules are intended to apply to insignificant groups. The person who declares himself to be the president of a group with him as its only member.

Wiki needs to revise its policy to include groups which have been socially excluded, which astrology, as a whole has, and which the AFA, specifically, has been.

Wiki will refuse to do this for the simple reason that the underlying problem with astrology is not scientific, but political. Wiki does not want to be the one to let the side down and be the first to admit astrology might exist. It would rather someone else went first.

The consequence of this policy is that Wiki attracts bullies as editors which it cannot control (there seems to be no end of them), while, on the other hand, it generates a great deal of hostility in the general community, who are unaware of the 364-ish year battle to eradicate astrology by every means possible.

The "scientific" hostility to astrology is based on the French Enlightenment of 1650 which declared the subject a dead letter. This was codified in 1751, a century later, in Diderot's Enclyclopedie. No rationale was given. You can read the original entries for both Astrology and Astrologer in English translation if you like. These opinions had previously been restricted to catchpenny publications of no merit, as you will find in F. Leigh Gardner's Catalog Raisonee of Works on the Occult Sciences, Volume II, originally published in 1911, reprinted n 1977 as Bibliotheca Astrologica, by Symbols and Signs, North Hollywood, CA. Gardner, who was loosely associated with the Golden Dawn, had bought an old library from someone who collected everything, good as well as bad. It's a useful survey. There were very few books, from the start of printing, up to about 1890 or so, that escaped him, as I have long used him as a reference.

The origin of the French Enlightenment has been a puzzle but has a simple source: It was a reaction to the end of the 30 Years War some two years prior. In that war Germany had destroyed itself and its science and culture. The Enlightenment was the French asserting themselves as superior. Which they have done at every opportunity since.

The underlying reason for this, as well as a possible explanation of why astrology specifically was banned, may have to do with a fear that Lutheranism, in the guise of the Huguenots, might spread uncontrollably throughout France - as the Cathars very nearly did some centuries before. No one wanted a religious war in France. (Germany was a ghastly example.) Separating French culture from German culture might have been part of the solution. In this regard, note the spread of atheism in France as a result of the Enlightenment as a counter both to the Church and to the Huguenots. This uniquely French atheism has persisted to the present day and has long included many scientists (Wiki editors among them, it seems).

It is notable that prior to the 30 Years War, astrology was strongly developed in Germany (as well as England), which was one of the things the Germans got from the Italian Renaissance, as you can derive if you read closely the Wiki entries on Italian Renaissance, French Renaissance, and German Renaissance. As the Renaissance was itself touched off by plunder taken by the Crusaders from the Holy Land, you should also Wiki the Twelfth Century Translators. Know that most of the books that John of Seville and his friends translated were astrological in nature, as those were the most highly prized. They produced Latin translations of Arabic translations of Greek originals. Many of these have recently been translated into English by various academic as well as astrological translators. The result may well be as profound in the 21st century as it was in the 15th. These are still powerful books.

So far as the French exclusion of astrology, remember the French have always excluded what they did not like. The early Impressionists were excluded from the official salons. The French have repeatedly attempted to ban popular English-language words and phrases, such as le weekend (le fin de la semaine), only to be defeated by its own population, who will have none of it. Presently the French are attempting to ban Muslims. The French are highly insular and highly centralized, always have been, always will be. Please don't fault me for writing that. Do your basic homework. This does not mean I dislike the French or think of them inferior in any way. I am fluent in the language and am well-traveled in the country and while I admire them greatly the culture itself baffles me. Which is an honest statement.

Since at least the 1980's, astrologers have had increasing fun romping through the old texts and reinventing themselves. Thanks to the work of Otto Neugebauer, David Pingree, Robert Schmidt, Benjamin Dykes and some others, Hellenistic astrology (a rather inferior brand, in my opinion) is on the verge of becoming a subject taught at the university level here in America. Seventeenth century English astrology may yet emerge at the university level in England, as there are are academics sorting through the writings of Simon Forman, which will lead them in all manner of interesting directions which have already been well explored by people just outside the university. For that matter, a uniquely German astrology emerged in the early 20th century, which has students here in the US. As for the French, astrology continues to be little known. As a culture they just don't like it, which is an opinion to which they are entitled.

Wiki should recognize the objections to astrology have been, are, and will continue to be political, not scientific. American astrologers may revive the subject only to discover that astrologers have always been reviled, as the subject itself is a nasty one and always will be. So long as excuses can be invented, various heroes can be found to continue to exclude and deny astrology, often at no credit to the truth.

Astrologers exist, like it or not. Virtually every astrologer knows of the American Federation of Astrologers. To the members of the community, the AFA is like asking if you are a Republican or a Democrat, it's that well-known. Wiki should excuse itself from this ancient, rancid, French argument and let the AFA page stand.

My suggestion: Revise Wiki's rules for significance to admit groups and organizations which are socially excluded but significant and well-known in their own communities. Heaven knows, I can find enough obscure organizations with Wiki pages.

No, I do not sign these. Wiki bans astrologers who write with their own names. That's social exclusion. Which is a topic that I believe has its own Wiki page. You might review it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.15.102.104 (talk) 18:15, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:06, 19 June 2014 (UTC)




 * Keep - the AFA appears to be a prolific niche publisher according to this; whether you'd consider that a reliable source or not, it does seem to demonstrate notability. Regarding some of the IP's comments above, I mostly didn't read it but would like to point out that this debate is not aimed at excluding this organization because of societal norms or because some editors don't like it. We don't do that here. If the subject demonstrates notability, it gets included, and I think this meets the criteria. I might think that astrology is bunk but that has absolutely no weight here. Ivanvector (talk) 20:07, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 21:20, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep – Their annual convention has generated coverage in newspapers, for example, Gliatto, Tom (July 1, 1988). "It's in the stars" USA Today, p. D1. And this in the Spokane Chronicle. And this in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune. Also, this in the Lewiston Daily Sun has info about membership numbers. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 21:50, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per Paul Erik. This is a longstanding organization and there is doubtlessly more. Carrite (talk) 16:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Withdraw nomination based on The first and third newspaper articles provided by Paul Erik. --j⚛e deckertalk 15:11, 8 July 2014 (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.