Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Descendant (astrology)


 * 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 redirect to Horoscope. As the article is still unsourced there is nothing to merge, so this is a pure redirect. (non-admin closure) User:力 (powera, π,  ν ) 23:25, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Descendant (astrology)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Entirely unsourced article. No indication of importance. Salimfadhley (talk) 11:27, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Salimfadhley (talk) 11:27, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. ☿  Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 13:38, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, passes WP:GNG due to significant coverage in multiple independent sources.

SailingInABathTub (talk) 17:01, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - These sources are all written by astrologers and therefore completely fail WP:INDEPENDENT. Their publishers are also closely affiliated to the subject (they're all occult/new age publishers), and have no reputation for fact checking at all. Now I think there's a good chance that this topic passes WP:GNG, but these are not the sources that will prove that (and certainly not sources that should actually be used in the article!). Apart from that, the fact that the current article is entirely unsourced should also be taken into account. I expect keep !voters to improve the article by citing at a least a few truly reliable (in this case, academic) sources. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 18:11, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Your comment is illogical, who else do you expect to write books on astrology? Would an article on veterinary surgery sourced to a book about a veterinary surgery, written by a vet and published by a veterinary specific publisher also not be independent? I expect nominators to do a WP:BEFORE and add these very easy to find sources before wasting other editors time at AfD. SailingInABathTub (talk) 18:58, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, and articles on physics should be sourced to physicists, and articles on Buddhism to Buddhist authors, and articles on Flat earth theories to flat-earth theorists, right? And articles on White supremacism should of course be sourced to ... white supremacists? Or wait, may be not! So what's the difference? Well, while physicists know about physics, Buddhists and flat-earth theorists believe in Buddhism and flat earth theory. Astrology, at least in its contemporary form, is a pseudoscientific belief system, not an established body of knowledge like veterinary science or physics. People who believe in things and write about these things from the belief's point of view (as opposed to from a disinterested point of view, like e.g. a historian of philosophy or religion) have a vested interest in them. From WP:INDEPENDENT: An independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a given Wikipedia topic and therefore is commonly expected to cover the topic from a disinterested perspective. Treating veterinary science and astrology as if they were on the same playing field effectively comes down to a WP:PROFRINGE position, which is seriously problematic.  And then of course there's still the fact that these publishers, regardless of their lack of independence, have no reputation for fact checking, nor a system of editorial oversight (which should include some form of peer review at the very least). They're just not reliable, there's nothing for it. ☿  Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 20:13, 18 November 2021 (UTC) Please note that I am not the nominator here. In fact, I did not even !vote (yet).
 * Attempting to point out a logical fallacy, that you still do not seem to understand, is not the same as the advocacy of a specific point of view. As is appropriate for an article on white supremacy, it cites many sources written by white supremacists (such as Lothrop Stoddard and Madison Grant). SailingInABathTub (talk) 20:44, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Would you consider the likes of Lothrop Stoddard and Madison Grant as independent, reliable sources to base an article about white supremacism on, or not? If yes, that's WP:PROFRINGE, if not, then other sources would be needed to meet WP:GNG. Of course, White supremacy does cite other sources that are independent and reliable for its subject area. The fact that it also cites Madison and Grant as primary sources is irrelevant: we can cite astrologers here as well if appropriate (there's no requirement for primary sources to be independent), but they do not establish notability, because that does require independent sources. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 21:34, 18 November 2021 (UTC) I will also be very thankful if you refrain from commenting on my ability to understand logic.
 * While it is accepted that this article is pseudoscience, can you provide any evidence that it is a fringe theory? SailingInABathTub (talk) 22:11, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Surely the issue here is NOTABILITY?
 * Unless special notability rules apply, then WP:GNG applies: Has this subject received significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources?
 * In this case we have not yet demonstrated any significant coverage. All the sources we have are fringe, in-universe, self-published or problematic in the ways that @Aaugasma has kindly explained. If we could first establish notability then we could use these flawed sources to reference what certain astrologers have said about their own field.
 * This is why the comparison to White supremacy breaks down: That subject has been extensively documented by mainstream, reliable sources. We could build an article using reliable sources alone - but having done so we have the option of using fringe sources to show the contrasting point of view, without a PROFRINGE false-neutrality.
 * Can we focus on the real question: Can we demonstrate using reliable sources that this subject meets our notability criteria? If we can show that reliable sources have discussed this topic then it's notable - regardless of whether we personally approve of the subject matter or not. Salimfadhley (talk) 22:34, 18 November 2021 (UTC)


 * 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) 20:45, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 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  ☉) 21:34, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I wasn't clear. I believe it is a gross misrepresentation of the GNG to imply that an expert in a subject is automatically non-independent of their chosen field. That is very clearly not what is meant by that passage of GNG. It seems like this flawed argument is only ever applied to FRINGE topics, so that's why I pointed out that it's specifically countered by the fringe policy. ApLundell (talk) 21:08, 22 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Merge to Angle (astrology). There isn't enough presented here to deserve it's own article just yet. Build it up as its own section in the main article with proper reliable sources and once it's extensive enough there, then there's be an argument to split it out into its own independent article. But it's clearly not at that point yet. So, merge it back to the parent article for now. Silver  seren C 22:47, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment- don't you mean merge to House (astrology)? Salimfadhley (talk) 09:50, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge to Horoscope, if there's any actual info that meets WP:V (the article currently has zero citations) that the target article doesn't already cover. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:22, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge/Redirect. While astrology is bullshit, it is notable bullshit, and the details of notable bullshit are sometimes often notable.   Merging/Redirecting seems appropriate as there isn't enough here to support a stand-alone article (barely more than a WP:DICDEF).  Deleting the article serves no purpose, except to break attribution or remove useful redirects etc. if it is merged/redirected. -- Jayron 32 17:54, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to House (astrology). Zero cited content = nothing worth merging. Independent notability not established. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:55, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 04:38, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been linked to from a new section at Fringe theories/Noticeboard. jp×g 10:30, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge, with House (astrology) and/or Angle (astrology). SailingInABathTub (talk) 15:08, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @SailingInABathTub, @Bakkster Man, @Silver seren, @ApLundell Folks who voted for merge, I hope you are aware that WP:UNSOURCED content cannot be merged. If you mean redirect, why not say that. See WP:AFDR. --Venkat TL (talk) 17:00, 22 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect to one of the suggested locations above. Such as angles or house. Mako001 (talk) 11:05, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Horoscope - Angle (astrology) is itself already a redirect to Horoscope; redirecting to House (astrology) makes no sense, as that article only mentions the "descendant" briefly alongside the four angles and assumes the reader already knows that's what the angles are when it does so. Horoscope actually explains what they are, including the "descendant"; it's a far more helpful redirect. - Scyrme (talk) 00:16, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Horoscope: The article fails WP:NFRINGE and WP:GNG due to lack of reliable sources discussing the subject in detail. WP:FRIND clearly explains that independent sources outside of the fringe theory is needed to establish notability. I was unsure of the redirect target but Scyrme makes a very good case for target Horoscope. There is nothing sourced to merge. Venkat TL (talk) 14:11, 1 December 2021 (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.