Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Septennial cycle


 * 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. WP:OR, WP:Synthesis (I'd have loved to be able to mention WP:not a crystal ball...) yandman  08:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Septennial cycle

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I've been looking and can't find sufficient evidence of notability for me to think that this article isn't mainly OR - I should be able to easily find good references to a septenennial cycle in classical Western astrology if it were notable. dougweller (talk) 19:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC) There are hundreds of links pertaining to the septennial cycle:
 * Delete Although the German astrologer cited has a webpage that asserts that the classic 7 planets link each have their own year (Saturn in 2007, Jupiter in 2008, Mars in 2009, etc.), I don't see anything else that suggest that this is anything other than an idea from Angela Preis-Hartmann. Odd as it is to talk about something that is not accepted theory in astrology, this doesn't seem to be something that other astrologers talk about.  Mandsford (talk) 20:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Look at this: http://www.austriancoins.com/MedalsCalendarI.html http://www.austriancoins.com/MedalsCalendarII.html http://www.austriancoins.com/MedalsCalendarIII.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Systemizer (talk • contribs) 21:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

http://www.astrouranus.ch/marsja09.shtml http://www.kathshop.de/benno/katalog/pdf/019783.pdf

http://www.jutta-briegel.de/pageff728f0008.html http://www.bluewin.ch/de/index.php/374,13673/JUPITER_regiert_das_JAHR_2008/ http://www.hillac.de/zei_b282.htm http://www.moderne-astrologie-heute.de/inc/aid13.pdf http://viversum.freenet.de/freenet/magazin/artikel_2009_3_1_1.html --Systemizer (talk) 21:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * CommentAh, but you say 'pertaining'. That's your opinion and is original research. dougweller (talk) 10:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment The one in English doesn't use the phrase 'septennial cycle' and I checked two of the German ones, septennial in German is septennial or as an adjective something like siebenjahrig, I could find neither. But why all the German links? If this is a common concept in astrology, good English language ones would be easy to find. dougweller (talk) 22:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The matter is that metaphysics is alien to the English-speaking civilisation. Most of European metaphysics (philosophy, astrology) is of German origin. The difference between the Germans and the English is akin to the difference between the ancient Greeks and Romans. We owe our culture to the Greeks. Systemizer (talk) 09:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Our article on Metaphysics has plenty of English language authors, perhaps you don't know about them. Metaphysics is clearly not 'alien to the English-speaking civilization' (and I had to study it at Yale in the early 60s). dougweller (talk) 10:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is another page describing the cycle: http://www.sarastro.at/html/jahresregent.html Systemizer (talk) 19:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It is well established that any language is OK for references, and if the concept is notable in Germany, it is notable for our purposes. The encyclopedia articles are written in English, but the scope is world-wide. DGG (talk) 22:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The issue is whether any of the references establish the notability of a concept called the 'Septennial cycle'. I couldn't find it, and the word 'septennial' is apparently the same in both languages (and I looked for variants, but we actually need 'Septennial cycle'. Otherwise what we have is OR. dougweller (talk) 10:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The article creator is known for original research, and recreating deleted pages, see their talk page. Edward321 (talk) 01:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete More original research from article creator. Edward321 (talk) 01:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment There doesn't seem to be an Afd tag on the actual article. Edward321 (talk) 06:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * CommentThanks, weird, must have been a Twinkle problem. Or it happened when there was a bug in the software, which there was a few days ago. Fixed now. dougweller (talk) 07:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete = I find dougweller's research into the German-language articles persuasive. (I find Systemizer's comments about Germany being the wellspring of Western mysticism to be mind-bogglingly weird...he needs to read up on the mysticism movements in England in the Victorian era before he continues in this vein.)   Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 18:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC) Strong Delete = All of Systemizers arguments have been demolished either by others or by himself.  There is no notability to this concept, it is original research and synthesis, and the core idea apparently doesn't exist outside of a couple of fringe astrology believers.  Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 21:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Metaphysics is not mysticism. Consult a dictionary. Systemizer (talk) 19:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Astrology is mysticism, consult your nearest astronomer. :) Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 20:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Astrology is not necessarily mysticism. Mysticism implies lack of INTERNAL logical coherence. --Systemizer (talk) 21:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I...I don't even know where to start with this one, it's so strange and unrelated to reality in any way. I think I'm done talking to you about this topic.  Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 21:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This is exactly what I meant by saying that metaphysics is alien to the English-speaking civilisation. A high level of latent inhibition makes people incapable of understanding metaphysics. "The mind of this country, taught to aim at low objects, eats upon itself." (Ralph Waldo Emerson, 1837) Systemizer (talk) 06:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Um....no. For all you know, my native language is German, or Gaelic, or Swahili.  Also, for all you know, I'm not from Emerson's country.  So please back off.  Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 19:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This is getting silly. If English is a language incapable of expressing metaphysics then clearly the article can not be written in English to a satisfactory quality and must be deleted anyway. The argument is not only foolish, it is self defeating for the purposes it is being invoked. That said, it did encourage me to go back and check that there was a German Wikipedia article on this subject and, guess what, there isn't. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. I think Systemizer is systematically demolishing his own arguments.  Upgrading my opinion to strong delete.  Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 21:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator. Article creator needs to more thoroughly understand our policies (especially WP:NOR) before wasting more time creating articles like this. --John (talk) 19:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This article does not contain original research. Be more specific in your claims. Just show me the suspected element of OR, and I will show you the source.--Systemizer (talk) 21:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've explained it above, I can't do more and am going to have to get away from my PC - real life demands call! dougweller (talk) 21:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Read the top of this page and especially the photograph of the astrological calendar (Aus einem astrologischen Kalender von 1935) Der astrologische Jahresregent. On the photo of the calendar, it is said that "Die Planeten-periode ist 7-jahrig." The German language does not have the word "septennial." "7-jahrig" is translated as "septennial": http://dictionary.reverso.net/english-german/septennial I provided new external links on the article page. The "7-jahrig" cycle is extensively used by European astrologers. Systemizer (talk) 06:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per dougweller. Original research. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  17:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Strong delete. The author has participated in this discussion and failed to produce any evidence that this subject is a coherent subject at all, is notable or even exists under this article's name. Given the vast volumes written in various languages on the subject of astrology, you would not expect any problem finding references for any notable astrological concept. In fact, the normal problem is the reverse, i.e. that it is too easy to find one or two references for any old nonsense which an individual astrologer made up. I have tried Googling and it seems that the most notable use of the term is a Jewish one unconnected to astrology. There are many genuine seven year cycles and all this article does is cobble a few of them together with original research. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Google has retrieved:
 * 2370 webpages dedicated to the septennial year of Mars (2009): http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&q=%22mars-jahr%22&btnG=Search and 1360 webpages dedicated to the septennial year of Jupiter (2008): http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&q=%22jupiter-jahr%22&btnG=Search
 * 502 webpages dedicated to the septennial year of the Moon: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&q=%22mond-jahr%22+reihe&btnG=Search
 * 676 webpages dedicated to the septennial year of Mercury: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&q=%22merkur-jahr%22&btnG=Search
 * 235 webpages dedicated to the septennial year of Venus: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&q=%22venus-jahr%22&btnG=Search
 * 643 webpages dedicated to the septennial year of Saturn: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&q=%22saturn-jahr%22&btnG=Search
 * Comment. It doesn't matter if the various 7 year cycles you talk about in the article are notable. Trying to bolt them together into a wider concept is still original research (see wp:syn) unless you can show a reference that already links them all into the concept you are writing about. Quality not quantity is what we need. One unimpeachably good source would do it. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The Hebrew calendar was similar to the Babylonian calendar—in both calendars, the year began in March and the Jews adopted the Babylonian month names:

In the Bible, months are usually numbered rather than named; but occasionally Phoenician names are used in the books written before the Exile and the modern names, which come from the Babylonian calendar, in those written after it. The first month is normally that beginning at the spring equinox, called Abib in Exodus and Nisan in Nehemiah; this was also Babylonian usage. (The Oxford Companion to the Year) I have shown that the year 2000 is a year of Saturn both in the Jewish and the Chaldean septennial cycles. By the way, don't you know that the Jews were in captivity in Chaldea? Systemizer (talk) 20:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The Jewish Septennial cycle is related to a pattern of Torah readings. It has nothing to do with astrology. The calendar similarity is irrelevant. It is a different concept to the one you are trying to synthesise. Not everything that takes seven years is related to everything else that takes seven years. You have given us a hell of a lot of links to look at and in return I would like you to look at just one short one which highlights the intrinsic absurdity of linking the unconnected far better than I can. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Torah is a Semitic book. No wonder that the Chaldean cycle is identic to the septennial cycle of Torah. Christ's native tongue was Aramaean—the language of Chaldea. I have added new text to the article explaining it. Systemizer (talk) 20:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: OK. Thanks for that. You have demonstrated that you are simply making it up as you go along without any recourse to published sources. I am upgrading my vote to "strong delete" accordingly. I am not going to keep repeating myself but I will just point this out one more time: The Jewish seven year cycle is not related to astrology at all. It is related to two 3.5 year periods over which the Torah is read, as one of your own external links makes very clear . Furthermore, while some Jews do follow astrology, it has no basis in any mainstream form of Judaism. Attempting to link a Jewish concept to an unrelated astrological concept may even be considered offensive. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The primary source of the Septennial Torah cycle:

Vayikra (Leviticus) 25:1 And HaShem spake unto Moses in mount Sinai, saying, 2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye come into the land which I give you, then shall the land keep a sabbath unto HaShem. 3 Six years thou shalt sow thy field, and six years thou shalt prune thy vineyard, and gather in the fruit thereof;

4 But in the seventh year shall be a sabbath of rest unto the land, a sabbath for HaShem: thou shalt neither sow thy field, nor prune thy vineyard.  The 3.5 year periods are of secondary importance and were invented much later. Yesterday, I came across a book drawing a direct parallel between the Jewish Sabbatical year and the year of Saturn of the Babylonian seven-year cycle (in Babylon, it was considered to be an "evil year.")

I have deleted the text about Shmita. Systemizer (talk) 21:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment = After the interchange above, Systemizer changed the sentence "The septennial cycle of the Ptolemaic astrology ascends to the ancient Semitic astrological tradition" to "The septennial cycle of the Ptolemaic astrology ascends to the Chaldean astrological tradition". It strikes me that this change is an effective proof that this article is either original research or made up entirely, since the Chaldeans were Babylonians, and not a Semitic people.  In other words, the sentence has changed entirely to mean something in direct contradiction to its previous meaning.  Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 21:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaldea#The_People Flopsy, what are you doing here? --Systemizer (talk) 21:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * See that citation needed tag? It means something.  If the words mean the same thing, why did you change them immediately after Daniel's argument above?  Doing that just makes it clear you're making this up as you go along.  Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 21:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * After the fall of Assyria, Babylonia enjoyed 70 years of independence. The Chaldeans, a little-known Semitic people, became the ruling class of the New Babylonian, or Chaldean, Empire. The most famous of their kings was Nebuchadnezzar II, who rebuilt Babylon. They made great progress in science—particularly astronomy and mathematics—and strongly influenced the Greeks. Systemizer (talk) 22:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you are missing the point. You are defending your synthesis without acknowledging that Wikipedia simply is not an appropriate platform for it, even if it is defensible as a theory. If I had invented some wizzo new astrological concept I would either look to publish it in astrological circles, and have it accepted there, or just get a premium rate phone number and charge people money to hear it. I would not be looking to insert it into an encyclopaedia. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) I have deleted what you objected to. 2) Google has retrieved thousands of webpages on the astrological septennial cycle (links above). How can you call it wizzo new? Frankly, I am amazed at the degree of the cultural isolation between the German- and English-speaking countries. Systemizer (talk) 22:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * All you need to do is show us one really good reliable source that demonstrates that the complete synthesis you are writing about already exists and is notable. It can be in German if you like. My obvious ignorance, stupidity and blindness to metaphysical subtlety should not be an obstacle. If the theory is exists and is notable then you should be able to demonstrate this to somebody with no prior knowledge. At the moment, we do not have verifiability, which is an absolute requirement for an article to be kept. But let me ask this before I go, if this stuff is so mainstream in German speaking countries, why does the German Wikipedia have nothing on it? --DanielRigal (talk) 23:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * See the word Jahresregent here: http://www.zeno.org/Pierer-1857/K/pierer-1857-008-0719 Here is another printed book: Die göttliche Wissenschaft By Reinhold Reinerth An article from Brockhaus: http://www.brockhaus.de/wissen/jahresregent Astrological glossary (see JAHRESHERRSCHER) Systemizer (talk) 00:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - while the article is a mess, and parts smell like WP:OR, it appears to be notable on the basis of the citations. Bearian (talk) 20:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is pretty notable—Google has retrieved 41700 webpages on septennial year ruler (Jahresregent) http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&q=jahresregent&start=0&sa=N Systemizer (talk) 22:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, Bearian. I would be interested to know how closely you compared the subjects referenced (I actually think there are several unrelated ones) with the purported subject of the article, which is a nonsensical original synthesis of them. I do not believe that the references and external links support the thrust of the article as it is currently written. I would be interested to know which of elements of these subjects you think are notable and which are not. I am not completely adverse to the possibility that something can be rescued from this mess if it was written in a neutral manner, by an experienced editor, following the sources. That said, I remain to be convinced, and I think that deletion and starting from scratch would be the best approach if there is a future for this subject at all. I am not even convinced that the article is correctly named at the moment. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Daniel, I do not know exactly what you mean by nonsensical synthesis—you are so inarticulate (virtually dumb) in your speech... I mentioned two interesting coincidences (with Shmita and the bone cell replacement timing), without any original analysis. Just food for the reader's thought. Systemizer (talk) 00:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as Original research and Synthesis. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:37, 3 March 2009 (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.