Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Astrology in the Bible


 * 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. j⚛e deckertalk 02:17, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Astrology in the Bible

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article has no reliable sources, so far as I can tell, and all but the most trivial background material appears to be completely unsourced original research, which has not been published hither to now.

Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, of course.

This isn't quite a hoax - I'm sure the person who wrote it believes it - but I do think it comes mostly under Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - not a hoax. The unreliable sources and SYN/OR violations has to go. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 21:15, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - No reliable sources. --RaiderAspect (talk) 01:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * delete Complete WP:BULLOCKS. Mangoe (talk) 02:28, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:25, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:25, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:25, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:25, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: I can see a case being made for astrology and the Bible (references to it in the Bible, how the Bible may impact it, etc), since there does seem to be some stuff out there for this, although I'll admit that the majority of it could be seen as trivial and/or unreliable. The Bible code is a good example of something that wasn't explicitly stated in the Bible per se, but did gather a big following. However the issue here is that this is pretty much someone's personal synthesis and would need to be re-written and/or sourced better. I think that there is merit in this subject, but this particular version isn't really the answer. It's better written than some of the OR stuff out there, but it does need some heavy editing and I'll be honest that this would be a pretty big undertaking as a whole because there's so much to wade through out there. Tokyogirl79  (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:57, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think, though, that's basically a different subject than this article. It's unlikely that a single claim made in the current article would actually make it into that theoretical one. And we also have an article, Christianity and astrology, that seems a much more fertile ground for improvement, and which could easily subsume this topic. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:35, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - I've been trying to find the time to resurrect the 'Astrotheology' article. It's actually a giant field of study in the Catholic church. If anyone has the time to look into that and adjust the article, the world would be a happier place. Alas, this is not that, and the world remains the same. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 12:54, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete although I'd vote to keep an article based on serious academic sources. The various website presented here aren't reliable, and we have to be careful of religious websites, because people will believe passionately and evangelise about their beliefs in all sorts of things generally regardless of whether those things are supported or unsupported by evidence. Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:33, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete; whatever residue may be left without the self-published sources, OR, & synthesis can be merged into Christianity and astrology—or maybe Solar deity, which seems to be a major topic here despite the lack of demonstrated (or even argued) connection to the purported subject. I agree that there could well be a respectable article under this title, but it would have to be based primarily on the work of textual scholars, theologians, archæoethnologists, & so on.—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  02:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete as per many others for SYN/OR. GoldenRing (talk) 08:07, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect per nom, as a plausible search term, to Christianity and astrology, as suggested. This also violates WP:FORK as being one view of the topic. Bearian (talk) 20:53, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Interesting topic, but no reliable sources. The article seems to be based almost exclusively on the findings of one website of unknown and dubious credibility. I would recommend to the author(s) to cite more academic sources and include findings in the Christianity and astrology article. CoffeeGiraffe (talk) 13:28, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Not only is it chock full of synth and OR, but it's synth and OR about a fringe theory, which is written like a pamphlet from an astrologer's storefront. It's like someone was trying to see how many policies they could break in one article without resorting to cursing or gibberish. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  17:49, 20 May 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.