Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aspects of Mars


 * 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 per WP:NOT. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihon joe 19:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Aspects of Mars

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Improperly application of AfD template redirected to Articles for deletion/Aspects of Pluto. My preference is to transwiki to an appropriate site. RJH (talk) 17:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. There are number of minor planet pages where this (aspect) information is included in the content, but I don't think it's an appropriate location. So, depending on the consensus here, I'd like to act on the minor planet aspect data accordingly. Thanks. &mdash; RJH (talk) 18:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:BUNDLE I am including this corresponding article which user:RJH neglected in this new round of AfDs:
 * Potatoswatter 18:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd like to point out that I did include the aforementioned discussion in the header. But I apologize for missing the other articles since they were located well down in the Aspects of Pluto AfD, which required a scroll down to locate. &mdash; RJH (talk) 16:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Proper process was followed for nominating multiple articles. This AfD is improper.
 * Comment Saving the content of this article in the history does not preclude a transwiki. The fact nobody will do a transwiki is proof that this random jumble of numbers belongs in no wiki anywhere, much less wikipedia.
 * Comment There was consensus that the article should have been expanded to explain the data, which was not understood by anyone in the AfD discussion, including User:RJH. Nobody in the AfD discussion did the research to find the article "astrological aspect." When I read that after the AfD was closed, I was educated enough to realize the article did not even live up to its title: it should be a list of dates for significant positions. The title of the article is incorrect. Let someone be WP:BOLD.
 * Comment Having the vague sense that an article is over your head and must require expertise, and thus must convey expertise somehow, does not justify making a counterclaim to WP:NN. If this article cannot be merged to ephemeris or astrological aspect due to blatant non-notability, it doesn't deserve its own article.
 * Comment: The fact that no consensus was reached in the previous AfD does not mean nothing should be done. I made the only logical step towards a transwiki, if transwiki happens to be your personal preference, given that no destination site has been suggested yet.
 * Comment If you must renominate, please follow WP:BUNDLE. Potatoswatter 18:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment This AfD should be speedy closed, it does not follow the correct procedure (as user:potatoswatter points out above), further it comes for too soon after the last AfD (see talk:afd for guidlines on standard practice) since no new evidence has been brought forward. The correct procedure after an AfD closes without concensus is to discuss on the articles talk page, sbandrews (t) 00:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, do not transwiki - This is the kind of material on Wikipedia that harms my students! Last time, I stated that these articles were comprised entirely of indiscriminate information that was so poorly organized that it was of no use to anyone.  Listing one set of distances, one set of brightnesses, and one set of apparent diameters on the same line as four sets of dates is confusing, as the distance, brightness, and apparent diameter changes over time.  Given that these ephemeris tables have been compiled for 96 asteroids or so, they look like they are being created for astronomical (not astrological) reference.  As astronomical reference information, these tables will cause great confusion and turn people away from Wikipedia.  Moreover, as stated before, the material is unreferenced.  It should be deleted.  It should not be transwikied anywhere.  Dr. Submillimeter 00:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep both Pluto was just recently up for AfD by itself, with a result of no consensus. We're not going to get any further, except by accident. Transwiki is meaningless without a target to tranwifify to. DGG 05:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It was not put up by itself. There was consensus that the four articles nominated did not belong in Wikipedia, so we can keep them in the history for later transwiki in case someone decides they are not nonsense. Potatoswatter 05:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment The Pluto AfD closed only one day before this one was started with a result of no consensus. This certainly wasn't time to address the concerns raised, which should have been done on the article's talk page rather than in a new AfD. I realize that this one is an attempt to discuss the series of articles together, but process wasn't followed. I would suggest this be withdrawn, and if necessary renominated again in a few weeks after there has been discussion on the talk page.--Cúchullain t/ c 20:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete unsourced unorganized data-dump of a trivial nature, without explainations 132.205.44.134 21:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment what about Aspects of Uranus and Aspects of Neptune? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mu301 (talk • contribs) 14:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Sneakily enough they have separate AfD's with practically no activity. I just fixed Uranus so it linked to its AfD... Potatoswatter 16:29, 11 April 2007 (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.