Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faculty of Astrological Studies


 * 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 No Consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Faculty of Astrological Studies

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

For an institution that has purportedly existed for over 60 years there is very little coverage in the news archives except the occasional mention in relation to a notable astrologer. Fringe books only give a passing mention. Note that organizations are required to be independently notable per WP:ORG. Considering the additional requirements for fringe theories per WP:FRINGE: A fringe theory can be considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory, this also be applied in this case. So in summary, fails WP:GNG, fails WP:OR and appears to inherently fall afoul of WP:FRINGE due to the lack of critical sources and critiques. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - The organization seems to be notable. The article cites a several different solid-looking sources, I find plenty of ghits on a diverse variety of websites, and this newspaper article helps me to conclude that a lot of people who make a living in astrology hold credentials from this outfit. Astrology is notable per WP:FRINGE, and this organization/school seems to be notable within the astrology arena. The fact that I don't believe in the validity of astrology does not justify excluding the topic from Wikipedia. --Orlady (talk) 21:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Solid looking isn't the same as solid sources. For example, the above newspaper article does mention the topic, but it's a passing mention, not even a dedicated sentence to it, see the requirements of WP:GNG. Also note that astrology (but it's a subtopic of a fringe theory concept) itself isn't the topic of this AfD, what we do note is the lack of mainstream (or any) coverage of this organization. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that WP:GNG says "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources." A mainstream newspaper article that says that two of the UK's leading astrologers got their training at this institution is more than passing, trivial mention. If that were the only source, it would be insufficient to establish notability, but there are many other sources (such as the ones cited in the article) of similar value. Collectively, they indicate notability. Not every notable topic has been the subject of a monograph published by a reliable source. --Orlady (talk) 04:00, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Significant coverage means in detail, see WP:GNG: "Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." IRWolfie- (talk) 12:11, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - the references are fine, the organisation is notable and established, has a long history and wide reach, and there are plenty of independent references. Also see no neutrality issues with the content of the page so don't understand the justification of that tag either --  Zac   Δ talk! 22:53, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The requirements of WP:GNG and WP:ORG are quite clear. pointing at a google search and claiming there are independent sources isn't enough. I suggest you re-read the requirements. Specifically significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:56, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, they are independent of the subject - the subject of the page is the Faculty of Astrological Studies. --  Zac   Δ talk! 23:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I was focusing on the significant coverage part, i.e non-trivial mentions. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:11, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you describe content like this, this, or this as trivial.  The latter is from the biography of Coronation Street Actor William Roache. --   Zac   Δ talk! 21:42, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The latter source is exactly what a trivial mention is; it's a passing mention. I can't see the first source, the preview of the specific page linked is unavailable. The middle source, Psychics and Mediums in canada only makes a single claim for which it has dubious reliability: "The Fas program is undeniably rigorous", other than just trivial mentions. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:19, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The links are working fine as far as I can see, the middle source talks at length about someone's experience with the Faculty, and William Roache's discussion of it is a point of notability. I mirror Warden's sentiment - I have given my reasoning and demonstrated the validity of it to the point where I don't feel that further justification is necessary. --  Zac   Δ talk! 23:12, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep It is our policy that Wikipedia is not censored. Warden (talk) 14:19, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Great telling us about some policy, but that has no relevance to this AfD. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:20, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The relevance of the policy seems quite obvious. My !vote stands.  Warden (talk) 22:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Warden, keep votes must show how a notability guideline is met. You have failed to do that quite obviously.LibStar (talk) 04:23, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Other editors have addressed the issue of the notability guideline above. Rather than repeat their point, I chose to address a more important question of policy.  Your demand that I should approach the matter in a particular way is improper as you do not control this discussion. Warden (talk) 17:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Long established organisation, prominent in its field, associated with numerous notable individuals, and with more than sufficient coverage in third party sources. Rangoon11 (talk) 00:24, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Which third party sources give significant coverage. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:31, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There are pages and pages of results on Google Books which demonstrate considerable third party coverage. Rangoon11 (talk) 13:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete Another example of WP's walled garden of astrology articles that focus on ancillary aspects of astrology that are notable only in-universe but not to the rest of the world. The rationals to !vote keep above are specious. Firstly, NOTCENSORED has absolutely nothing to do with this as deleting an article on notability concerns is not censorship and we delete articles every day. Secondly, as Wolfie has pointed out, while there are mentions of this organization there is no significant coverage. Most refs mention it in passing. Lastly, pointing to google search results does absolutely nothing to establish notability because it's impossible to understand the context of the reporting, see WP:GOOGLE. Serious encyclopedias do not cover minor aspects of pseudoscience, i.e. the fringe of the fringe. Covering astrology is fine, covering every astrology organization not so much and not unless they have significant mainstream coverage. Sædon talk 22:03, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure precisely what you mean by "Another example of WP's walled garden of astrology articles that focus on ancillary aspects of astrology that are notable only in-universe but not to the rest of the world. " but it is true of the vast majority of WP articles that they would only ever be of interest to a small proportion of people, often in a very narrow field. This is irrelevant to notability policies (thankfully, for it helps to explain the richness of WP).Rangoon11 (talk) 22:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What I mean is that there is a WP:Walled garden of articles relating to astrology that are only of interest to astrologers and WP is not an astrological encyclopedia. As astrology is a WP:FRINGE and WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE topic and WP is a mainstream encyclopedia, we don't cover topics that don't have mainstream sourcing.   Sædon talk 22:53, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * None of your links are to notablity policies, and astrology is in any case clearly a notable topic for WP so the point is otiose. And I repeat, most articles in WP will be of primary interest to only a small group of people (unless the subject for some reason happens to be in the news) - completely irrelevant to our notablity policy. Your stance in this AfD seems to be a reflection of your attitude towards astrology, which is concerning. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:02, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This isn't an AFD for astrology this is an AFD for an astrological organization, see WP:ORGSIG - astrology being notable doesn't lead to astrological organizations being notable unless they have received significant coverage in independent sources. I don't accept your premise that most articles are of interest to only a small group of people but either way you are missing my point which is not who is interested in it but who has covered it. If there's no mainstream coverage then it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, period.  Please keep your comments regarding your suspicions of my motivations to yourself, I'm not the slightest bit interested in what you find concerning and there's no good reason to make it personal; the closer will either accept my arguments or not without regard to my motivation.   Sædon talk 23:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's strange because just a few lines higher up on this page you have written "As astrology is a WP:FRINGE and WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE topic and WP is a mainstream encyclopedia, we don't cover topics that don't have mainstream sourcing".
 * And "mainstream" coverage is a bogus and completely subjective yardstick. Do you mean that all topics need to be mentioned in the mainstream media? 'Surely not!?Rangoon11 (talk) 00:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Read WP:VALID. We don't cover aspects of fringe theories that aren't covered by mainstream sources. Further, if it's not got significant coverage in mainstream sources, how could it be worthy of note? IRWolfie- (talk) 00:32, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not strange, you're just misunderstanding me. Astrology is a pseudoscience with a large history and impact upon the world and it has mainstream sourcing.  Notice that we don't use astrology journals and the like on the main astrology page to establish notability of the subject; we can point to dozens of books and articles to substantiate the article. This organization does not have mainstream sourcing.  It doesn't matter that it's an organization related to a notable topic; for a subject to have an article on WP it needs to be covered specifically as is explained on WP:CORP.  Sædon talk 00:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't see your last sentence before. To answer your question, I am not suggesting that all topics need to be mentioned in the mainstream media; I never mentioned the media at all.  What I'm saying is that all articles need to be covered by mainstream sources in general.  That could be newsmedia, scholarly journals, books published by respected academic publishers, etc.  This is WP 101, see WP:IRS.   Sædon talk 01:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This 'mainstream' test which you keep referring to is not a part of WP policy, it is your own test, and is a wholly subjective one at that (presumably it means - a source I agree with). I had also never heard of such a thing as a "mainstream book" before. Rangoon11 (talk) 11:46, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Read the policies and guidelines which have been linked in this discussion, you will see this do discuss the mainstream and mainstream sources/scholarship etc. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per Zachariel. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:46, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete: Simply not notable. Practically no coverage in reliable independent sources, and what precious little there is is scant or tangential. In spite of the cries of WP:GOOGLEHITS and WP:LOTSOFSOURCES above, no reliable sources have so far been produced, and my own Google, Google Books and Google Scholar searches turned up nothing that would come even close to satisfying our notability requirements. Even in the unreliable in-universe sources provided, mention is not substantial. Clearly fails to meet the requirements of our notability policies. Cries of WP:CENSORSHIP are a strawman argument. Articles on fringe topics are certainly welcome on WP if they are based on reliable independent sources. Unfortunately, no such sources exist in this case. The topic is mentioned only in in-universe fringe sources which clearly fail WP:RS, and even then, coverage is far from substantial. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:37, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sources such as Astrology in the Modern World and the Larousse Encyclopedia of Astrology seem quite satisfactory, being from respectable publishers. Your characterisation of the matter as in-universe seems quite tendentious and contrary to policy.  We cover all sorts of topics which some consider to be fanciful or false.  Belief in astrology is as common in the general population as belief in religion, politics, economics and other fields that are dubious or disputed.  We should no more delete this than we should delete an article about a religious institution such as a seminary. Warden (talk) 14:20, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Good points. To give an example, we have a very large number of articles on Scientology-related topics. A bizarre and sinister cult/money making scam masquerading as a religion which I would personally like to see banned. But a topic of notability nonetheless which requires proper coverage by this project.Rangoon11 (talk) 14:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * And the Scientology topics which we cover are notable because there is mainstream coverage, we don't make Scientology sub-articles with just in-universe Scientology sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:43, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 'Mainstream coverage' and 'in-universe' are not policy requirements and are subjective to the point of being meaningless. The requirement is merely that sources which establish notability not be directly connected to the subject. An encyclopedia of astrology or a book on astrology are perfectly acceptable sources.
 * BTW - Scientology articles are frequently lacking even third party sources. Take a look at Rundown (Scientology), Implant (Scientology), Assist (Scientology), Doctrine of Exchange and many others.Rangoon11 (talk) 15:56, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * They are all start class articles and have been tagged with substantial issues for 3+ years (1 has a single reference, another has some non-universe sources (Rundown)). I couldn't find a single good article, B class article, C class article or a featured article that is only covered by Scientology sources that I can see from this list . IRWolfie- (talk) 16:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete none of the sources link to seemed to contain in-depth coverage (one gave a google copyright error, probably because of where I'm browsing from). Stuartyeates (talk) 06:32, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sources have been identified in the discussion above which have not yet been added to the article. For example, see Astrology in the Modern World.  That page discusses the change in emphasis from teaching in person to teaching by correspondence.  This is significant detail and, as the content is about the method of teaching rather then the content of the teaching, the issue of the validity of astrology is quite irrelevant. Warden (talk) 07:52, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * When I click on that link I get "You have either reached a page that is unavailable for viewing or reached your viewing limit for this book" Stuartyeates (talk) 08:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - I found zero gnews sources for this organization, which means notability looks very weak since it reportedly exists for over 60 years. A book search yields more results, but this are mostly astrologers mentioning that they obtained a diploma from this "school", so these are not really independent sources. WP:ORG puts the bar rather high for companies and organizations, and I don't think we should put it any lower for astrological organizations. We don't keep articles about some exchange traded companies with 100s of employees, because they are not in the news. And here we are going to keep the article about a fringe organization that has never been in the news, just because some astrologers make mention of it in their book. Really? MakeSense64 (talk) 06:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Google news isn't much use for British newspapers before 1990. Even so, the news search link above does not give zero results; we see items such as "The Faculty of Astrological Studies, Britain's foremost teaching body in the subject, is celebrating its 50th birthday today... ".  That comes from The Observer which is quite a reputable newspaper but Google only sees it because it was reprinted in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Warden (talk) 07:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Reply. I first clicked on the ordinary search and then on "News" in the sidemenu. It tells me: "No results found for "Faculty of Astrological Studies" -wikipedia." . Here is the url of my search: . Where does this difference come from? MakeSense64 (talk) 07:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That search only covers the last 30 days. You need to click on "archives" in the side menu to get a full search, or simply click on the word "news" in the searches automatically linked in the nomination statement above. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks, searching google is more tricky than I thought. Still, the 31 gnews hits that come up appear to be mostly passing mentions rather than the in depth coverage we need. Is that enough? MakeSense64 (talk) 08:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * A passing mention is one which is tangential. The coverage in this case is significant and detailed.  As a further example, the Times Educational Supplement, which is a major educational journal in the UK, states "The Faculty of Astrological Studies, founded in 1948, is one of the oldest organisations teaching astrology and is regarded as one of the major educating bodies in the astrological world. " and goes on to explain how the institution is developing its qualifications.  Such examples testify directly to the importance and notability of this institution. Warden (talk) 10:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, getting a few more like that and we would slowly be getting there. But I would hope the quality sources being found will be added to the article, because as was pointed out before, right now the article is only giving in-universe sources. It would probably be good to get some RfC on that in a proper place. I think this is a problem we see in topics directly related to matters of belief or opinion. If a certain topic is only mentioned in in-universe publications (e.g. astrology books), then do we consider this "independent" sources for the purpose of establishing notability? MakeSense64 (talk) 11:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Most specialist topics, such as mathematics, are only covered in specialist publications and so the "walled-garden" complaint is too facile to be useful. But sources such as The Observer and the Times Educational Supplement are not especially focussed upon astrology and so the point is moot here. Warden (talk) 12:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * DeleteLacks the significant coveraqe in reliable and independent sources needed to satisfy WP:N and WP:ORG. Edison (talk) 01:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - I am not sure of which of the current sources are reliable. One would expect that a 60-year-old organization would have gotten the attention of the British papers periodically, and that has happened to a degree: see, , and . Bearian (talk) 22:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Those are all trivial and tangential mentions, less than a sentence in length. We reqire SUBSTANTIAL discussion in independent reliable sources. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised to see this discussion still rumbling on. The FAS is described in this book as one of the West's most influential astrological societies: .Rangoon11 (talk) 23:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's an extremely brief and tangential mention in an unreliable source. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * So amongst the small number of astrology societies it can't even lay claim to being the most influential? The book has dubious reliability from the puffery it gives and only contains one and a half sentences on FAS. Not significant coverage. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Who says that there are a small number? Rangoon11 (talk) 23:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 01:10, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep – I do find a few references that are independent of the subject of Astrology itself (e.g. this book), confirming that the institution exists. But I couldn't find anything substantive from a topic-independent source; it's mainly statements saying, to the effect that person X earned a degree from the Faculty of Astrological Studies. However, there is this from perhaps a borderline source, which has some details. I'd probably say the article is borderline notable. It's at least not particularly controversial, so mainly astrological-oriented sources may be sufficient. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:09, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Either keep it and rewrite it with clearer structure and source or delete it until the mechanism is clear, systematic and reliable sources can be found. -- RexRowan  Talk  11:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - I am puzzled as to why this article keeps getting relisted again and again. Clearly this makes deletion far more likely (in my view a consensus for keep was in any case established in the first discussion). It is not right that this article keeps getting endlessly relisted and is being forced to achieve a higher hurdle than most other articles taken toAfD.Rangoon11 (talk) 15:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's relisted because, in the view of the uninvolved editor woh relisted, it has yet to reach a consensus. As an involved editor (i.e. one who has !voted and commented), your view on whether a consensus has been reached is not given much wieght. The relisting also gives involved editors more time to research and uncover more reliable sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:53, 30 July 2012 (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.