Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Imum coeli


 * 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 keep. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:23, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Imum coeli

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The article has been unsourced since Feb 2007. After 15 years, I think a deletion discussion is appropriate. Coin945 (talk) 08:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * After 15 years, what is appropriate is you looking for sources before nominating things at AFD, and making properly researched nominations. This one has an encyclopaedia entry in James R. Lewis's Encyclopaedia of Astrology ISBN 9780810389007.  This is yet another zero-research AFD nomination today, making work for other editors that you should have done yourself.  Uncle G (talk) 10:03, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep, the nominator does not propose a valid WP:DEL-REASON. The nominator does not say which notability guideline that this article fails to meet. SailingInABathTub (talk) 10:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep all of Coin945's AfDs from today as a procedural matter. Coin945 has nominated 72 articles in a short space of time with a questionable rationale ("long-term lack of sourcing" -- see WP:NEXIST) and no indication of WP:BEFORE, with finding that a number of them can have their notability confirmed on literally the first page of Google results. This is not something the relatively small group of people who work AfD can realistically handle. Vaticidalprophet 11:01, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This article is a dictionary definition. Those arguing for keeping the article have provided zero sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * And you don't mention looking for them, either. Did you not do any looking, too, like the nominator?  One cannot honestly say that something is a stub for which there are no sources allowing expansion if one hasn't looked, and the only person who has looked so far, going by what you say here, is me.  We're all supposed to do that: me, you, and the nominator.  Furthermore, Wikipedia is not a dictionary explains the difference between a stub, which is what this is because it tries to explain a concept, and a dictionary definition, which this is not because it isn't giving the etymology/pronunciation/translation/et al. of a word or phrase.  Uncle G (talk) 19:18, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment, sources added. SailingInABathTub (talk) 21:11, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I added two more sources. After that I did an experiment, performing the laziest possible search by clicking the 'news' link on the deletion template. (Did not have to tell it to go to Google. Did not have to type words. ) That found articles in Allure, Bustle, and Teen Vogue. Perhaps they're not the best sources for the article, but they're an immediate indication that sources exist. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 11:37, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak keep I have to admit I think astrology is a bunch of rubbish. However I guess since it is a topic people write on, we do need to have some coverage of I guess we need to keep this. I still wonder if the article though too much works as part of a broad dictionary of astrology. I think it may need to be re-written to relefect to have a more neautral point of view and to stop endorsing astrology.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:09, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, per the sources which have been added since nomination; these are reliable sources, they establish notability, and the subject matter may be rubbish but it is definitely a concept that people interested in this thing care about and find significant. jp×g 01:31, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The overarching concept is angle (astrology). Uncle G (talk) 02:10, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep The sources added since the AfD nomination have done their duty. doktorb wordsdeeds 07:12, 17 April 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.