Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hellenistic 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   SPEEDY KEEP as SK1 and WP:POINT AfD. I note that this article was not a recent creation having been created in 2006. Dougweller (talk) 14:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Hellenistic astrology

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Regards, Peter S Strempel  &#124;  Talk   00:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Being created to avoid known controversial debate (NPOV content fork) on the Astrology page where it has been asserted that no change can be made without considering all sub-pages (see Talk:Astrology).
 * Using a Wikipedia article as a sandbox.
 * Violating Wikipedia guidelines on verifiability.


 * Keep - this editor seems to have lost his senses. I can only imagine it is because his proposal for a suggested rewrite of one passage in another article in the main Astrology page failed to find favour and it was pointed out to him that sections within the main astrology page should summarise the daughter pages it links to. No dispute, no controversial debate, only a reaffirmation that editors working there were aware of the need to bring the pages the main article linked to up to standard too.


 * Within the last hour he has proposed three major astrological articles for deletion:


 * Babylonian astrology
 * Hellenistic astrology
 * Horoscopic astrology


 * ...and declared on the main History of astrology talk page

"I announce my intention to delete all unreferenced content from this page within seven days. This is in line with Wikipedia principles about verifiable content. Wikipedia pages are not sandboxes for personal opinions, views or discussions. Please add necessary citations for every assertion made."
 * He knows there is a committed group of editors working in an organised manner to review all of this content systematically, and is being wholly unreasonable to target such major content pages simultaneously, knowing that they are closely related in content and likely to involve the interest of the same group of editors who cannot be everywhere at one time. What are his motives in trying to destroy so much astrological content like this so suddenly, when these are valuable pages which require attention not deletion? I suggest the page is tagged with the issue that concerns him, and that he adds 'citation requests' for any quote or comment he feels could be challenged and is therefore in need of citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zachariel (talk • contribs) 00:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. This nomination is fairly disruptive. It is unreasonable to propose these three articles concurrently for deletion.  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 01:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. There is no reason to delete the entire article.  There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the content, and it would only be restored eventually in the long run. --Chris Brennan (talk) 06:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - First, I think this article Astrology_in_Hellenistic_Egypt should be merged into it, as was proposed back in January, but never completed. Peter Strempel's nominations are not unfair, because clearly too many different articles about ancient branches of astrology have been created. The number can be brought down by merging them, which would probably give fewer but better articles. The question then becomes which of these articles to merge and how. MakeSense64 (talk) 07:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that the problem with his nominations is just that he is targeting the wrong articles. In the article you mentioned, Astrology_in_Hellenistic_Egypt, it should be merged into this article on Hellenistic astrology rather than the other way around, since Hellenistic astrology includes but is not restricted to astrology in Hellenistic Egypt (it was also practiced in Rome, Syria, etc.).  It is important to identify what the main traditions are, since then you can merge other articles that are a part of them, as in that instance.  You can't just delete articles on major historical traditions though.--Chris Brennan (talk) 07:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think of this as a vote on my personal preferences so much as as Wikipedia rules: don't use article space, which is transmitted to the world as reliable information, as a sandbox experiment in just how far you can push Wikipedia rules on verifiability. Show me verifiable sources, within the next seven days, or admit you were making all of this up as you went along. Peter S Strempel &#124;  Talk   08:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Why do you assume that the article was "made up" if it doesn't currently have enough sources? What if the information is accurate, but it was added in by people who didn't realize that they needed to add citations?  If that is the case then it doesn't need to be deleted, it just needs improvement.  You haven't demonstrated that this article shouldn't exist on Wikipedia, you've only demonstrated that it could stand to be improved.  --Chris Brennan (talk) 08:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep per SK1 – the nominator may have listed some reasons for deletion but literally none of them apply. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  Subsyndic General  ─╢ 11:32, 22 July 2011 (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.