Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Horoscopic 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. This is a clear WP:POINT AfD. I note the one delete !vote which is actually a suggestion to merge the material with two other articles and can be discussed later as closing this AfD does not stop anyone from suggesting a merge. Dougweller (talk) 12:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

This page is being nominated for deletion for -
 * 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).
 * Being a vehicle for spawning yet more unnecessary sub-pages whose sole purpose appears to be to avoid debate on the astrology talk page.
 * Containing a single referenced assertion that should be properly placed in the Astrology page.
 * Using a Wikipedia article as a sandbox.
 * Violating Wikipedia guidelines on verifiability.

Regards, Peter S Strempel  &#124;  Talk   22:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * 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. Zac   Δ talk   00:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - Poorly sourced indeed. I think at best, the contents that can be sourced should be merged over into Horoscope, a very similar article, also poorly sourced, but a bit more developed. MakeSense64 (talk) 06:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - An article being poorly sourced is not sufficient reason to delete it, especially when the information it contains is accurate. I would not recommend merging the article with horoscopic astrology since the term "horoscope" has a somewhat broad range of meanings at this point, whereas horoscopic astrology is a very specific type of astrology.  The two are not necessarily one and the same.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris Brennan (talk • contribs) 07:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete and integrate sourced material to Astrology and Horoscope Bulwersator (talk) 07:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:JUSTAVOTE. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  Storting  ─╢ 11:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep per SK1 – the nominator may have listed some reasons for deletion but literally none of them apply. (Also, this page is desperately misformatted.) ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  Storting  ─╢ 11:34, 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.