Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Romanian Astrologers Association


 * 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   delete. -- Cirt (talk) 11:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Romanian Astrologers Association

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

No independent sources are presented that would demonstrate evidence of notability. Searching for "Romanian Astrologers Association" and for "Asociaţia Astrologilor din România" yields but a few hundred results apiece, seemingly all of them mirrors of their website or of this page. Since no independent coverage is available, we should delete. Biruitorul Talk 04:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I see a deletion in the near future, perhaps by a tall, dark stranger. No evident notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The Association seems to be of value, and of some notability (search "Astrology in Romania"), as the leading educational promoter of astrology in Romania. Also considering the fact that they have a reasonable website, with an English translation, and a periodical. The article does need some rewriting, however. Davemnt (talk) 11:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * See WP:GNG; this encyclopedia relies on "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Show that those sources exist, and notability is demonstrated. Make airy pronouncements about the quality of their website, and it is not. - Biruitorul Talk 14:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What makes this AfD rather than just requesting more references then? You think it doesn't exist? Davemnt (talk) 14:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Existence isn't the issue. Billions of people exist, but very few of them merit articles. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * They think that no independent reliable sources exist, because no such sources were cited in the article, and when xe went looking Biruitorul couldn't find any. Your only counterargument is citing some.  As noted, your personal opinions of what is "leading" and "of value" are irrelevant.  We don't determine notability based upon subjective judgements of random Wikipedia editors.  We show that a subject has been documented in depth by multiple independent and reliable published works.  Sources!  Sources!  Sources! Uncle G (talk) 01:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I see, thanks for your clarification, I hope you understand that I am still getting to grips with the fundamental Wikipedia guidelines. I'm sure this isn't really a valid argument, however, but I still believe that there are many less noteable organisations than this which are on Wikipedia, though. Davemnt (talk) 22:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 05:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Davemnt's arguments are essentially that it can be verified and other stuff exists.  Astrology is a fringe science, which many people enjoy as entertainment, but that's all it is.  A national astrologer's association would have to be more notable than the average such group.  That is a tall task, for which it fails. Bearian (talk) 23:04, 9 November 2010 (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.