Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mundane 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   merge to Astrology and/or History of astrology. &mdash;SW&mdash; talk 23:34, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Mundane astrology

 * – ( View AfD View log )

A fork of Astrology, with no sources to support this as an independent subject. Further, it has been written as if astrology had actual predictive qualities, with no citations for the predictions. In fact, the only citation in the "Historical predictions" section is one pointing out that Nostradamus may not have used astrology. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 21:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The arguments for Merge and Redirect make sense, and I would Support that. I've just not found enough supporting material for this article to stand on its own. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 22:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete: Extremely poorly sourced and largely unsourceable POV fork of Astrology. Google search, Google Books and Google Scholar turn up an impressive number of hits, but extremely few of these meet WP sourcing requirements. I've spent A LOT of time dealing with sourcing on astrology-related articles, and have found that useful reliable sources are extremely difficult to find. In this case, my own search turned up very little, and that was only of very limited usefulness. Contains little, if anything, of encyclopedic value that can be verified using reliable independent sources. Would support Merge and redirect if HIGH-QUALITY reliable sources can be found. Not in-universe claptrap like the sources currently used in the article. However, I highly doubt that such sources exist for anything more than a very brief mention in the main Astrology article. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Anything we lose could be merged into Astrology without too much trouble. --John (talk) 05:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. A Google search throws up lots of evidence that this is a notable field of astrology - just click on the "books" and "scholar" links above, for example. I agree it could do with improving and some better sourcing (and I'm sorry I don't have time to help), but that's not what AFD is for. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per Boing! said Zebedee. If I have time in the afternoon, I'll try to work on it a little. ~dee  ( talk? ) 11:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep While the current article does contain a lot of rubbish this does not mean the article is unfixable. Yes it is stuffed full of unsourced material and original research, but the article can probably be improved. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect (and rewrite for NPOV) as a section of Astrology. It's notable enough that it's necessary to cover this, I think, but it's unnecessary to fork it off at this time. No prejudice to re-fork if the Astrology article gets too long. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 15:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect This page probably doesn't have enough sourcing to support more than a paragraph or three and it's not clear that it is distinct enough from astrology to have its own article. My suggestion is to condense what we can based on the RSs and then create a new section on the main astrology page.  S Æ don talk  22:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That sounds good, and then if the sources can be mustered to show notability it can be split off again. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I could go with that too. Whether it should be a separate article or a section in Astrology depends on how much content can be reliably sourced - if there's enough, a separate article (with a summary section in the main article), and if not, a full section in the main article. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect as per Saedon. --Salimfadhley (talk) 13:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep The nomination is a blatant falsehood as it claims "no sources to support this as an independent subject" when the article has an entire book of this title in its list of sources. Warden (talk) 16:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * A book title is not a citation, and I resent the accusation. We have no idea if they're even using the term in the same meaning as portrayed in the article. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 17:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The book's subtitle is An introduction to the astrology of nations and groups. This corresponds exactly to the usage of the article and so the source supports it.    If you have "no idea" about these matters then you should please follow our deletion policy before starting a discussion of this kind. Warden (talk) 18:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This article spans everything from "nations and groups" to natural and manmade objects, as well as Nostradamus' predictions. If you want properly define the term and actually cite the book, feel free. But do not keep insinuating I did not follow process. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 18:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete* Obvious POV fork. Could be covered in one paragraph on the main article page. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, possibly by merging and redirecting, but the sources are really, really awful, and I doubt actual good sources can be found to justify a full article. 86.** IP (talk) 00:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Request for reassessment. Recent changes have been made to the description and citations by several editors. Other editors are asked to re-assess the encyclopedic merits of this article in view of the changes.Hapmano (talk) 09:32, 29 March 2012 (UTC) — Hapmano (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Blocked sock. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I still don't see the need for a separate article. From my perspective, the only parts worth using are the lede and the overview section, which would be ok as as subsection on the main page.  The other sections don't seem to add anything encyclopedic to the article and seem mostly conjectural.  S Æ don talk  09:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I've reread the article, and my Delete !vote still stands. The sources used are in-universe fringe sources that do not satisfy WP:RS. The only ones that are reliable are Dawkins, which states that the subject of the article is pseuocientific nonsense, and Hartman, which says that there is no evidence for the scientific validity of the subject. The rest are "for-entertainment-purposes-only" in-universe sources of zero encyclopedic value. Sorry, I can't see this article being expanded beyond a basic definition and a statement that it is unsubstantiated pseudoscience supported by the Dawkins and Hartman cites. Everything else that's there, or could be added, is basically nonsense. Move it to Astrowiki . It simply doesn't belong here. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * My delete still stands; there don't appear to be reliable sources to talk about it at this lengt A full 2/3rds is cited to wikis (http://www.astro.com), blogs ( http://iipa.net/IIPA2010DH/usa_chart.htm gives a blogspot page as its source at the bottom), or not cited at all, and the rest appears to be fringe books by non-notable people from what appear to be specialist publishers. At the very least, if you could cite some Greek thinker on it, or notable mediaeval philosophers, or, at the very least, someone qualified as an expert scholar on the subject, I'd need to reconsider; as it stands, no. 86.** IP (talk) 13:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * A reference is made to Ptolemy's Book on Mundane Astrology in the Tetrabiblos as well as the works of noted historians in the field of astrology. Such contributions do not deserve to be branded "in-universe" and thus non reliable. Granted more work is needed to adequately develop the article. A stay of execution is in order.Hapmano (talk) 14:26, 29 March 2012 (UTC) — Hapmano (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Blocked sock. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * For Ptolemy, find a modern reliable REAL academic source to support it. We can't use the primary source itself. However, there are still problems. That section gives the impression that there is some sort of continuity between Greco-Roman, Islamic and modern astrology, when there clearly isn't.
 * As for "noted historians in the field", I take it you are referring to Nick Campion. You're free to use his REAL peer-reviewed work, but his non-peer reviewed work and pseudo-academic work is just about worthless, particularly on this topic.
 * The most you'll get out of this, though, is a solid definition of what mundane astrology is, or rather was, or rather was supposed to be. You're also going to run into a practically insurmountable problem when it comes to modern astrology, namely that there are practically no reliable sources on the topic. Very few scholars have been interested enough to write seriously on the topic in reliable independent sources. Sorry, but the in-universe sources are flat out. They do not constitute a part of serious scholarly discourse on the topic, as they are not considered worthy of consideration for any purpose except, perhaps, entertainment by any serious scholars outside of the "astrological community". That's what "in-universe" means.
 * I don't see any good reason for a stay of execution, as you put it. The article is overwhelmingly blither. If you shave that away, you're left with, at best, a definition and the pseudoscience statements. Nowhere even close enough for a stand-alone article, or for more that a very brief mention in the main Astrology article. There really is no hope of substantially expanding the article using REAL realiable sources, as practically none exist.
 * There are more productive ways for you to spend your time here on WP than putting lipstick on a donkey, and a dying donkey at that. Or try your luck over at Astrowiki or another "astrology-friendy" site. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Holden's History of Horoscopic Astrology is another source. Clearly, sub-fields of astrology are of interest to 'specialists' within the field. To expect specialists from other disciplines to evaluate this field is a straw man argument. Let's keep the case against astrology out of this discussion, as it is a separate matter and is, in any case, handled in this and the main astrology article. There are likely plenty of other sources, but gathering them takes time.Hapmano (talk) 15:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC) — Hapmano (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Blocked sock. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Holden's history is also completely useless as a source here in WP. I see that most of the blither has already been trimmed away from the article, leaving, as I said it would, an extended definition and a large statement about the pseudoscientific nature of the subject. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:21, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect Simply insufficient sourcing to justify a separate article - all it merits is a short section in astrology. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The assertion of insufficient sourcing utterly ignores the fact that WP policy is to require that articles CAN be sourced, not that they ARE CURRENTLY sourced. Moreover, the Books and Scholar links should have made this a slam-dunk. All objections here proceed from a prejudice, which is that articles on astrology will corrupt the minds of the readers. Because of this prejudice, the most basic of critical thinking falls by the wayside. For example, Astrology is thousands of years old; there are sources available, can you possibly deny it? So I will break with my tradition of taking articles off-site without mention. It is transcribed to http://hippie.wikia.com/wiki/Mundane_astrology and should be reintroduced at a later time. Do not expect it to work straight away, though; Wikipedia editors have a superstition all their own, which is that articles on astrology are from Da Debil (eyeroll). Anarchangel (talk) 22:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it's reasonable to ask for evidence that it can be sourced. And no such evidence has yet been provided. 86.** IP (talk) 03:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I take back what I said about your denial. Quite obviously, you can deny it. Or at least, ignore it. Perhaps thousands of years of study in an area by proto-scientists in a field that led to that of modern Astronomy only IMPLIES that evidence of their work must exist? But no, I have seen it myself. I do not have the name of the particular author to hand, it was nearly thirty years ago, now. Anarchangel (talk) 20:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Anarchangel, from a brief inspection, it appears that your website is asserting copyright ownership over its content. Is this correct? And if so, on what basis are you "taking articles off-site"? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Website? I do not have a website. You mean Wikia? Your inspection was overly brief, perhaps. I put a template of my own creation on each article that has Wikipedia content, that states unequivocally the fact that it contains material from Wikipedia. In the case of articles that get deleted, that means I have to also add a list of contributors, to the talk page. Anarchangel (talk) 20:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - a mere fork for an obscure new effort to pretend that there is actual evidence for plain ol' astrology. No reliable sources to support the idea that this is anything but a new figleaf on an old superstition. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  18:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete as POV fork of Astrology. Carrite (talk) 19:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge Though I sometimes read the newspaper horoscopes, I find little to require this article being separate from the main article which absolutely has a great deal of overlap. Disclaimer: I am a member of no projects, groups or whatever on Wikipedia.  Collect (talk) 21:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep I suppose people haven't even bothered to look up sources? I would say shame on you, but AfD no longer surprises me. Voters just don't bother doing the due diligence needed. I should really start a proposal to make WP:BEFORE a policy. Anyways, sources:
 * ‘Astrology helps man face vicissitudes of life' - The Hindu
 * Astrology defined and also defended - Toledo Blade
 * Astrology: understanding the birth chart : a comprehensive guide to classical interpretation
 * The limits of influence: Pico, Louvain, and the crisis of Renaissance astrology


 * That's just a few examples. There are a number of news articles centered on the early 20th century, along with quite a few recent ones. Mundane astrology seems to have taken off in India, with the World Conference on Mundane Astrology taking place there and has been for at least four years. From what i'm reading, mundane astrology is one of the main four types of traditional astrology, so it's rather strange that anyone would say that it's non-notable. Silver  seren C 21:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * You sure do have a bizarre concept of what constitutes a reliable source here on WP, and have given us quite a mixed bag:
 * A local event announcement in a newspaper written entirely by a junior reporter who never left his desk solely on the basis of a press release provided by the organizers of the event, with little, if any, contribution of his/her own;
 * A 100-year-old letter to the editor; old enough to qualify as a primary source by now;
 * A non-scholarly handbook that is at best for entertainment purposes only;
 * A REAL scholarly work! Excellent find! Good enought to provide an extended definition of the topic, but not very much more because of its very narrow scope.
 * You're going to find the by far most of the sources you'll dig up with Google are as unreliable as your first three examples, and that actual reliable sources like your fourth example are few and far between, are rarely comprehensive, and practically never deal with modern astrology. Don't forget that this is a pseudoscience-related article, and the sourcing policies should be rigidly adhered to. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:42, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Let me see if I can find things more to your liking.
 * Richard Trewythian and the Uses of Astrology in Late Medieval England - JSTOR
 * Raphael's Mundane Astrology Or the Effects of the Planets and Signs, Upon the Nations and Countries of the World - by Robert Cross Smith or one of the others using the pseudonym Raphael, good for how mundane astrology was used when it was first created
 * Mundane Or National Astrology - by Alan Leo, also good for beginning views
 * There's some, i'm still looking though. I do still think the subject is notable. Silver  seren C 02:52, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Trewythian is reliable, but again, it appears to be very limited in scope, as you will find practically all of the academic sources to be. It's going to be quite difficult to find enough sources like that to piece anything together beyond a more or less extended definition.
 * Raphael and Leo are both primary sources. Anything in them has to have been treated in a reliable secondary source for our purposes. Reliable secondary sources for modern astrology (Leo) are scarce as hen's teeth. You'll probably have better luck finding something on Raphael, but whether it is going to be useful in sourcing this article, I don't know.
 * In any case, I still don't see enough that calls for a independent article, and still support a merge. If you or anyone else find adequate sourcing, the topic can be expanded in the main Astrology article or the Tetrabiblos article, or spun off again. But right now, there isn't much hope. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:29, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That's fine, it can still be spun out again once long enough. The two main issues I have though is that 1) the Astrology article doesn't even mention mundane astrology, so when this merged, it'd better be mered properly and actual information put in. I've seen too many "merges" where people just redirected the article and didn't do anything else. And 2) it's clear from the sources i've presented that there is information that can be used, so it rather pisses me off when people (like below) who likely didn't bother looking for sources anyways are saying that there isn't any available information. Silver  seren C 17:24, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. No justification for keeping this stub. Either merge any worthwhile content and delete this, or just delete if nothing unique is here. BTW, it was by following this link that popped up on my watchlist (currently 6,979 pages) which led me to this. I didn't even know about this stub! That link led to a talk page discussion in which weird accusations of coordinated voting were made. EagleEye doesn't seem to have a clue how Wikipedia works and is imagining things because they are violating a fundamental rule here - AGF. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:43, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you please address the sources I linked to above? Along with the sources you found when conducting a search yourself? Silver  seren C 06:17, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Which sources? Stuff you've found on Google that was published by who-knows-who, who-knows-when, and which tells us who-knows-what? What do you think the sources you've found can be usefully be cited for? AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to The limits of influence written by Steven Vanden Broecke, a history of science researcher and member of The Center for History of Science, and published by BRILL? Or were you referring to Richard Trewythian and the Uses of Astrology in Late Medieval England from the Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, published by The Warburg Institute? Silver  seren C 07:25, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Andy hit the nail on the head: "What do you think the sources you've found can be usefully be cited for?".
 * How about a description of mundane astrology, it's use throughout history, the examples therein of what constitutes mundane astrology, and also the information therein that discusses how the sun and planets part works. Silver  seren C 17:24, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete, or merge if there's anything worth merging. No content worth creating an article for; it just creates more opportunities for POV warring. — kwami (talk) 08:43, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge If the sources given actually do support the idea that this is considered "the most ancient branch of astrology" then the material should be a short section of Astrology or maybe the History of astrology article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:53, 2 April 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.