Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Addey (astrologer)


 * 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:53, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

John Addey (astrologer)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Beyond Geoffrey Dean mentioning him in a paper, there aren't many reliable sources about this person. At the moment it's a hagiography. No sign of notability or any significance outside of a small collection of astrologers IRWolfie- (talk) 00:30, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:34, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - whatever we may think of astrology, Addey was a notable practitioner. He was a Patron (i.e. an honorary president, a top figure) of the Faculty of Astrological Studies.The Guardian names him as the mentor of leading astrologer Charles Harvey. JSOnline (from The Observer) discussed his findings. EINnews mentioned his theory of "harmonics". That theory appears to have wide currency, as for example at Skyscript where Addey is described as being in the tradition of Pythagoras, Kepler and Robert Fludd. He was certainly notable in his field. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:03, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * WP:FRINGE: "A Fringe subject (a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory) is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, in at least one major publication that is independent of their promulgators and popularizers. References that debunk or disparage the fringe view can also be adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents. "


 * Also, WP:GNG requires significant coverage, not just passing mentions in various places. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:52, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Many of us, probably, consider Astrology a dubious field. However it is not fringe in the sense of a single madcap theorist with a few dedicated followers starting a new cult; it has been around for many centuries, with an extensive literature. Clearly it is not scientific, but that's another matter altogether. Within that certainly-notable tradition, Addey was certainly a leading light. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:48, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry but it's well established that WP:FRINGE criteria apply to Astrology and suptopics, like any pseudoscience. It's not just "single madcap theorist" articles that are subject to it. I suggest reading it thoroughly to see where it applies. If he was a leading light there should be significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. You can make the basis of your keep that WP:FRINGE doesn't apply to astrology topics, but the closing admin gives weight to arguments based on their adherence to policy and guidelines (and it still wouldn't meet WP:GNG). The content you have added, based on sources only reliable for personal opinion, and which treats Astrology theories as a serious discipline violates neutrality as it doesn't reflect the mainstream opinion (which can't be found because the topic isn't notable). IRWolfie- (talk) 13:17, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I share the mainstream opinion here. Addey as a Patron of a major society in that field is a notable figure. I have added two sources from within the field that are quite critical of Addey, ironically enough in one case because he was too rational and scientific, so they certainly aren't from his side, but they clearly represent their field in viewing him as a significant author.Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:42, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Fringe criticisms don't show notability. This isn't about who is on "his side". Astrology is a fringe belief, it's not a large reputable field of study, but pseudoscience. So the individuals have to be shown to be notable outside of the small collection of individuals. The article is about a practitioner of a fringe theory, and so it is subject to WP:FRINGE. Notability is with respect to the world at large, not within a small clique. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:23, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * According to the nominator of this and many other paranormal Articles for Deletion (AfDs) a key argument seems to hang on FRINGE. "A Fringe subject (a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory) is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, in at least one major publication that is independent of their promulgators and popularizers. References that debunk or disparage the fringe view can also be adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents." In a biographical article, this argument is specious.  It is very clear that the rule applies to fringe theories and organizations and not to individuals.  And IRWolfie makes this very point above when he/she writes "Fringe criticisms don't show notability." which contradicts FRINGE "References that debunk or disparage the fringe view ... establish the notability of the theory".  So fringe criticisms don't show notability of the person, but they do when it is theory.  You can't revert the rule back to theory when it suits the argument. Which one is it people or theory/organisations?


 * So unless IRWolfie can find a way of interpreting FRINGE so it applies to people, it should be ignored and we should focus on the person in relation to WP:Notability and not fringe theory. On that basis, I agreed with the deletion of two nominations of this editor's paranormal AfDs.  I was not involved in the editor's proposed deletion of Roy Firebrace co-founder of the Astrological Association with John Addey (where this specious argument was also used) - which resulted in no consensus.  I consider that there is sufficient notability here and with another open AfD: Deborah Houlding.   Kooky2 (talk) 21:43, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - My objection is to the tone of the piece, but that's an editing matter. A recognized expert in his field, I echo Chiswick Chap's rationale above. Additionally, I note that the subject is dead, so the blatant promotionalism that we often seen with such pieces is not a contributing cause for aggressive interpretation of GNG rules here, in my opinion. We're not here to save the world from astrology, we're here to build an encyclopedia. Carrite (talk) 16:21, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Aggressive? Asking to show WP:GNG isn't being aggressive. Just because it's pseudoscience doesn't mean it gets special allowance to not pass WP:GNG, and FRINGE. Pseudoscience "experts" should be recognized by outside sourcing if they truly are notable. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:46, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:45, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete: Multiple Google searches turned up nothing even faintly resembling significant and substantial coverage in multiple reliable independent sources, and the sources used do not establish any notability outside of the fringe community. The significance of the subject within the fringe community cannot be assessed because no reliable independent sources exist on which to base such an assessment. The fringe sources used are all unreliable to the extreme, and are passing, trivial or tangential anyway. No evidence is available to indicate that he was a notable fringe proponent except from sources linked directly to him. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:21, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The sources appear to be independent and reliable. However, I believe that more editing time should be given to this page given that secondary sources for someone who died in 1982 tend to be found in books and journals rather than on the web. Kooky2 (talk) 14:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep: This article is too long and should be cut down considerably. However, John Addey appears to have been one of the more significant astrologers of the last century.  Founding the Astrological Association of Great Britain in 1958 - an organisation which according to reliable sources on the Wikipedia page still exists and has 1,600 members and has four regular journals, alone should be enough to qualify as notable and significant. Kooky2 (talk) 14:54, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Notability isn't inherited WP:NOTINHERITED (except for obvious cases like Royalty). IRWolfie- (talk) 16:33, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTINHERITED applies to membership of a group or being a relative of a celebrity or merely an association with an established notable body - i.e. undeserved or unearned notability by association. The examples make it clear that this cannot be adapted to apply to the founder of an organisation for which the founder should be credited. For example, someone who is a Moonie or a brother of Sun Myung Moon is not necessarily notable, but Sun Myung Moon is notable as the founder of the Unification Church. Kooky2 (talk) 18:19, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If you think being the founder of a notable group makes someone notable (and doesn't fall afoul of NOTINHERITED) then show a guideline which says as much. The point of these examples is that notability has to be demonstrated on the persons own merits. If you think his notability stems from founding the organization, then the logical move is for a merge. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:28, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The point has been made with an example and since you claim NOTINHERITED it is up to you to to show the appropriate guideline. It would help me to understand your point if you could provide examples where the founder of a notable group is not notable.  The organisation would have to be in a popular field, appear to be flourishing after at least 50 years and where there are over a thousand paying members. I think a merger would be a mistake.  This article stands well alone as John Addey appears to considerably more than the founder of a notable organisation. Kooky2 (talk) 22:01, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The appropriate guideline is WP:N. If you wish to deviate from WP:GNG the burden is on you to show that there is a relevant guideline. You can deny this is the case if you wish, but the closer will know. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:32, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * So we agree WP:NOTABLITY is the appropriate guideline and we can discard WP:NOTINHERITED as irrelevant in this case. Kooky2 (talk) 23:14, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep: The article could be tightened up, but we shouldn't confuse articles which uncritically advocate fringe claims from those which report their practitioners and claims from a neutral perspective. In this article much is made of Addey's Neoplatonism and I don't think there is a 'mainstream' position on this. I also note that he was critical of conventional western astrology which makes him of interest. As far as notability is concerned, there are thousands of examples on WP of people who are notable within a particular community - are we proposing to delete them all? It seems clear that Addey was notable within his community, even if a few more citations would be helpful. Google searches often throw up little or nothing for people who died before the web, so they are not necessarily a reliable indicator of notability. Far more reliable would be library searches.Paul Quigley (talk) 17:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * To draw a parallel, would you think someone who is only published in creationism related publications but not in regular mainstream sources was notable? Why would you not expect significant coverage in the mainstream sources if they are really notable? The people you are comparing with are part of the mainstream; the sources they are covered in are regular reliable sources; significant coverage in RS exists. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:04, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep: I predicted this. The logical positivists, represented here by IRWolfie and Dominus Vobisdu, are intent on airbrushing history in their radical denial of all modern astrological organizations and all modern astrological leaders. Whereas they characterize astrology as paranormal, it is normal to most people and is used comfortably in everyday conversation to describe personality, and understood. They describe astrology as Fringe, but it is global in its use and influence. It is very far from fringe. Science needs to study it, but scientists are afraid of these self-styled vigilantes who will try to destroy their career paths. Editors need to get a spine and stand up to political censorship.


 * I've improved the Addey article with solid references in a new section named Cited Research, which should make it conspicuous to anyone concerned with the discussed issues. Ken McRitchie (talk) 21:17, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The references don't support your text. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:12, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The text contains numerous quotes taken directly from the references. As I am letting the references speak for themselves, nothing could be more plain or accurate. Ken McRitchie (talk) 23:22, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * e.g, in the first paragraph "Addey's astrological research methods have been cited in mainstream publications." There should be a source that mentions that to at least justify why you have made an entire section to being cited. "The authors describe their own independent study of time twins that used Addey's evaluation criteria", the source doesn't say that as far as I can see. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:36, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with your second point. I was too generous with Dean and Kelly. They used Addey's authority only for criteria on the timing between births and I have corrected this. Ken McRitchie (talk) 16:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I might add that the authors who cite Addey (I.W. Kelly, G.A. Dean, and D.H. Saklofske) have no problem with Addey's research and even express regret that "sadly, this intriguing work was cut short by Addey's untimely death." These words suggest that this research of a statistical effect was indeed promising and puts Addey's research within the demarcation of science according to the criteria stated by Thagard. Because this is a such a well exposed source (in its second edition), used in university courses, this citation is especially worthy of note. Ken McRitchie (talk) 21:47, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Being cited by a mainstream source or mentioned doesn't make someone notable. By that criteria every scientist who wrote a paper someone cited would be notable. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:10, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no issue if you want to move the article to . It simply does not meet the requirements to be on wikipedia. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:02, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * To the closer, I would suggest looking at which accounts are WP:SPAs, and inactive accounts becoming active. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:14, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep: I want to be open about my astrological interest and state that I followed the link to this discussion from that given on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Astrology talk page. I hope that having an astrological interest does not prejudice me from being able to contribute to discussions that concern astrology, even if I only do this from time to time. Please assume good faith since those who are knowledgable in the subject are able to offer an informed opinion on whether John Addey was notable for his standing in his subject. I concur with the view expressed by others, that John Addey was an especially prominent astrologer in his time and was certainly influential in his field. His entry is exactly the kind of material that makes Wikipedia valuable for specialist researchers. Logical 1 (talk) 14:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep: I always contribute to Wiki under my own name (the use of untraceable user names is at best a mixed benefit, and the sooner WP contributors move towards the normal practice of encyclopedia entries being signed with actual names the better, in my opinion) - so my view will no doubt be read with my close relation to the subject in mind. It seems to me that the possible deletion has a rich irony which would not be lost on my father, a dedicated follower of Socrates and his ways. I am not part of the astrological community and must leave it to them to argue the case that astrology is not a pseudoscience. However I doubt if there is a figure in modern astrology who has done more to encourage astrologers to use the methods of modern science - to move beyond their former reliance upon mere anecdote and to test their claims empirically.  His major contribution to astrological understanding, the theory of harmonics, was presented not only with a series of theoretical explanations, but also with an extensive set of supporting data - producing in the seventies what he had been advocating since the fifties.   This itself has over the years meant that some in the astrological community have been critical of John Addey - "adulterating the study of astrology with dirty modern science."  Despite or because of this, all his major writings continue in print, thirty years after his death.  As for citations beyond the astrological world, I do know that he was one of three astrologers featured in a lengthy Sunday Times or Observer colour supplement article in the seventies: anyone with access to their electronic archives should be able to provide these.--Tim-Addey09 (talk) 07:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - Since this is ultimately about sourcing rather than whether astrology is bunk, I note apparent coverage of the subject in Gavin Kent McClung's article, "A SALUTE TO OUR HERITAGE: What Makes A True Astrologer?" Dell Horoscope, June 2000, pp. 66-77, an excerpt of which appears HERE. For the record: I think Astrology is bunk. That said, this is a recognized expert in the field about whom an encyclopedic biography would be beneficial. Carrite (talk) 18:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not a reliable source for historical details. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * We can see that is your entranched opinion, but the overiding principle for reliable sourcing is that it is always judged according to common sense and the context of what it is being used for. Wikipedia does not suffer from independent magazine articles being used to qualify basic biographical information as much as it suffers from editors using its facilities to try to police the world from subjects that are not to their own taste. There are more substantial sources of information for these kinds of details anyway. What worries me is your absolute refusal to acknowledge any source, without admitting the need to apply editorial judgement to what it is being used for. Logical 1 (talk) 10:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no issue with using astrology sources for the opinions of astrologers where due weight has been shown, but not for sourcing related to historical details. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:40, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If an astrological source lists his books or reports the details of when he began a notable astrological association, then the astrologial source is an acceptable source of reference unless a better source is found. It is only important that we report on details that are published, non-controversial and verifiable. We can assume reliability for such matters in independent sources unless there is a reason not to. Due weight is not an issue in such matters. If such a source is being used to contradict mainstream knowledge or champion a fringe theory or position, then and only then do the policies for WP:Fringe apply. Logical 1 (talk) 10:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: I've looked at the sources recently provided, and have to conclude that they do not represent substantial coverage in reliable independent secondary sources. The fact that a real-world scholar used Addey's "research" as an example of fringe nonsense adds very little to the notability of Addey himself. Also, per WP:FRINGE, notability within a fringe community does not confer notability unless it is discussed by independent real-world sources, none of which are to be found for this person. In-universe sources of the type Carrite mentions are notoriously unreliable and promotional, and using them to establish notability is OR and synth. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:15, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I wonder if you are really 'concluding' or simply maintaining your position no matter what. Others have pointed out that the policy you've linked to relates to the presentation of fringe theories, not biographies. Persons who work outside of mainstream academia are able to gain notability or notoriety whether mainstream academia gives them substantial attention or not. In what way do you consider the source Carrite quoted to be unreliable - do you think it is unreliable in detailing the books that he authored, or lying by stating that he founded the Astrological Association? Such details are not to be mistrusted as unreliable until/unless there is reason to suspect the source of presenting false information of this kind. If we were to present Addey's beliefs as valid or legitimate, then there would be a problem with due weight. Reporting biographical information from published sources that are independent of the subject does not constitute OR, even if the authors or publications that biographical details are drawn from do share the same alternative viewpoint that our subject held. Logical 1 (talk) 03:03, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Claiming he had a rational and scientific approach isn't an exceptional claim? Astrology journals etc don't have a good reputation for fact checking, go see the RSN archives for specific examples. This topic is under WP:FRINGE: "A Fringe subject (a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory) is ...". Yes, much of this article is sourced to references that just aren't reliable for what they claim. The sourcing is sub-par. The sources just don't exist to put his views into the mainstream context. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:15, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * As I said, comments that cause concern over due weight are a different matter. They can easily be rectified under the normal editorial process without deleting the page.  The issue here is only whether your proposal to delete is justified according to your argument that there is no evidence of notability or significance available to us. Logical 1 (talk) 12:07, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: As a further measure of Addey's influence on his subject, this comment is from Recent Advances in Natal Astrology: A Critical Review 1900-1976 by Geoffrey A. Dean and Arthur Mather (Analogic, 1981, ISBN: 9780949912008) p.325: Under 'Harmonics' -
 * "Further advances have been due almost entirely to the twenty years of painstaking research by British astrologer John Addey". Logical 1 (talk) 10:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Recall that Dean is a former astrologer. This quote is a passing mention. I suggest you recheck what is required for significant coverage; i.e a significant amount of coverage. Where was that published? I can find no book with that ISBN but from google scholar it appears to have been published by an astrology group.IRWolfie- (talk) 11:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No, that's not the case. Check this Google books link where you can see it is listed (towards the end of the page) as a critical work by Patrick Grim in his Philosophy of Science and the Occult. Differing publication details are given there. References to Addey are frequent: p.137, 138, 141, 142,147,148, 151, 323, 325, 326,327,328, 329, 330, 331 - and 10 different publications by Addey are cited. In any case I am not suggesting that the subject's notability hinges on this source, but that it is further evidence of the criteria required to satisfy biographies of authors and professional creatives (as per WP:author criteria 1), which I would say is already amply fulfilled Logical 1 (talk) 11:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Other sources: I found a brief mention in a Guardian obit that seems to place him among the more rational of astrologers. You can't see the whole article, but he's used as an authority on astrology in this London Observer article. Overall, I think it's a borderline case, and the guidelines need to be clearer about how to judge practitioners of fringe theories versus the theories themselves. But I believe based on the above that the article meets the WP:GNG criteria. I think it should be edited to say clearly that astrology is pseudoscience, per the fringe guidelines cited above, and should be made more neutral and encyclopedic. It should come at the subject from more of a mainstream angle. Hence Keep. --Batard0 (talk) 17:16, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm going to approach this with fresh eyes and an open mind. To the extent that it's possible I will not focus on astrology, a subject on which I have no opinion, but will instead look mechanically at whether it meets the WP:GNG criteria. Before I do, I am unfortunately forced to say that astrology is classified as pseudoscience under WP:FRINGE/PS, which states: "Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience." Having said that, I find nothing in this guideline that restricts notability as it relates to people who espouse pseudoscience; it only treats "fringe theories" themselves, not their practitioners. Thus after this detour, I think we can return to the task at hand. First, I will evaluate the existing references in the article. Second I will try to find reliable sources in the news, books, and anywhere else. Only then will I voice an opinion on whether it meets the GNG criteria.
 * Ref 1 is a dead link.
 * Ref 2 is an astrological journal. An entire issue of the journal is cited, so it's difficult to tell specifically where the supporting information is, but that's not a dealbreaker. Is it a reliable source? Per WP:RS, reliable sources are "third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." I have insufficient evidence to judge whether Astrological Journal has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. I suspect that it is accurate and is reliable within the context of astrology, and yet astrology itself is considered a pseudoscience under the guidelines. How, in that context, could a pseudoscientific journal have a reputation for accuracy? I'll leave this one unanswered for now; my general take is that this source should be taken into account in judgment of notability, but is probably far from sufficient on its own to establish notability.
 * Ref 3 is a book where the subject is discussed in some depth. It is published by Paraview, not a self-published source. The publisher deals mainly in astrology, palmistry, etc. My only reservation here is that the publisher specializes in pseudoscientific work, and thus one could argue that its output establishes notability within pseudoscientific circles, but not generally. I can find little support for this view in the guidelines, however, which seem to treat books independent of the subject as reliable if the publisher has a reputation for accuracy, etc. If the guidelines consider astrology a pseudoscience, it seems one could question the reliability of this book along the same lines as with Ref 2.
 * Ref 4 is another astrological journal. See Ref 2.
 * Ref 5 is a primary source and not reliable for the purposes of notability.
 * Ref 6 is a book published by a regular publishing house that doesn't focus just on pseudoscience. This seems ok to me.
 * Ref 7 is a review on a website. Not reliable for the purposes of notability.
 * Ref 8 is another astrological journal. See Ref 2.
 * Ref 9 is a peer-reviewed journal. This also seems ok to me.
 * Ref 10 is a book that discusses astrology in the cited sections. This also seems ok. It's published by a university press, which qualifies as reliable under the guidelines.
 * You focused on WP:FRINGE/PS, but haven't looked at FRINGE. I suggest looking at the coverage in the sources themselves and not just whether they are reliable or not, and whether the sources actually verify the content. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:24, 18 October 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.