Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malefic planet


 * 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, per consensus that souring concerns have been addressed. Star  Mississippi  03:06, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Malefic planet

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

A very low importance article with absolutely unsuitable sources. The first appears to be a self-published work in the style of a children's textbook (complete with garish clip-art). The second appears to be a sort of self-help book which purports to teach readers how the stars can give "real world" answers. The final source is an "encyclopaedia", and therefore a catalogue of concepts in astrology and also not something we can use to establish notability. Salimfadhley (talk) 23:36, 23 November 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:32, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Salimfadhley (talk) 23:36, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Further sources include a chapter of a book on Babylonian astrology (which I think is not in-universe and instead a serious historical work, though it's hard to tell from the brief search I've done), another out-of-universe reference to malefic planets in Babylonian cultures here many in-universe blogs and websites (in the vein of this Times of India article). Mentions of the Babylonian malefic plants seem to pop up regularly as minor points in other out of universe articles as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rusalkii (talk • contribs)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 08:29, 1 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete (redirect) The Brill link (book from series on Magic, is an in-universe source) quoted above talks about its mention in a tablet related to Babylonian astrology. This has a mention on the article on Babylonian astrology, as is expected. 2nd link is an out of universe source but only gives a one line passing mention (not indepth coverage) while talking about Babylonian astrology. The third source Times of India, is an unreliable Indian newspaper that should not be used as reference. (See WP:TOI). Overall in my opinion, this topic fails WP:NFRINGE and WP:GNG due to the lack of reliable sources independent of the subject discussing it in detail. WP:FRIND states, quote:" In particular, the relative space that an article devotes to different aspects of a fringe theory should follow from consideration primarily of the independent sources. Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles. A similar action is needed on its twin article Benefic planet. Venkat TL (talk) 13:18, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * There is nothing at all in-universe about the Brill link, which is to an academic work on the subject written by Francesca Rochberg, and it is an eight-page book chapter titled "Benefic And Malefic Planets In Babylonian Astrology", i.e. about this very topic. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:05, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:44, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. As Phil Bridger mentions, the book linked above is written by a respected academic, on Babylonian astrology. I disagree that the recurring treatment in works of astrology is not something that hints at notability: It is obviously a concept that a) has been relevant for thousands of years in astrology, b) is still referred to in books of astrology and c) has been the subject of serious academic attention (as shown above) outside of the in-group astrology books. /Julle (talk) 22:08, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * So articles can be created on the basis of just one source that can decide the notability? Venkat TL (talk) 08:12, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Julle above. --Whiteguru (talk) 03:06, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, as it is subject of lasting importance and academic attention in a specific field.Jackattack1597 (talk) 16:43, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The lack of reliable sources itself is a good indication that this is not notable. Unable to find WP:GNG supporting sources, all these keep votes are based on a single source a letter about Babylonian astrology. Even the Babylonian astrology page only gives a passing mention. This page should be redirected to Babylonian astrologyVenkat TL (talk) 18:00, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, a letter has been mentioned, but the main source that has been offered in this discussion is a chapter in an academic book. And there are plenty more sources available from searches of books and academic papers even if we ignore the "true believer" ones. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:46, 14 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep: agree article is notable. - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:35, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astrology-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 ( d  c̄ ) 00:25, 15 December 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.