Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stars in 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The result was   Keep nomination withdrawn. -- Jayron  32  12:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Stars in astrology

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Page has been tagged for multiple issues; is devoid of meaningful conent and editorial attention, and generates unnecessary confusion and controversy over where to place discussion of cultural star meanings. See the discussion on the NPOV noticeboard and the discussion on Algol which has been made problematic by the existence of this page. Zac Δ talk   14:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions.


 * Keep. The subject of fixed stars in astrology has easily been the subject of entire books studied by astrologers.  The fact that the article is currently in a poor state is not in itself grounds for deletion.  Astrological beliefs about stars are a matter of historical record.  The belief that information about astrological beliefs about stars is "pseudoscience" is itself evidence of positivist bias. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:00, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep because it corresponds to other articles about astrology. Merge Behenian fixed star in here. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

@Its me Judith - it doesn't correspond to other articles about astrology. It prevents those articles existing by suggesting that everything has to be dumped into a page that no one wants to develop. Hence it fragments information and since no one is attending to the issues on the page, it's existence is only causeing problems Zac  Δ talk   15:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC) Zac Δ talk   15:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Smerdis of Tlön I completely agree. I am not trying to remove astrological reference to the stars - please read the discussions that have been linked to understand how this page is preventing the development of that sort of information. As another editor has already observed, recommending a move of all the stuff on cultural significance to one article like Stars in astrology is as senseless as having all the stuff for different stars under Star. Thanks for giving the opportunity to clarify that point.
 * Nothing prevents articles existing except whether there is enough reliably sourced material to justify an article. You could start Algol in astrology any time, if you have good sources for it. Some WikiProjects have a monthly Article Improvement Drive; you could go to WikiProject Astrology to get more help with this one. This article corresponds to Planets in astrology. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. We have both articles on the planets in astrology, and also articles such as Moon (astrology), and the article on Moon refers to it in the appropriate section.  There is enough astrological material on Algol to easily support an article on it.  On the other hand, there's plenty of material that could support an article on the fixed stars in astrology generally, including their prominence in older astrology and their relative neglect in current Western astrology (which I believe comes from Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos and its influence, which was weak on the subject.) - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep It is a scrappy article at the moment but I can't see any real problems with developing it and it looks like a notable topic. I think the idea of flagging it for development in the astrology project sounds fine. Just because there is stuff there doesn't mean that everything about astrology in articles about the individual stars should be removed. This is getting silly, you have one person trying to delete everything about astrology instead of developing the encyclopaedia and another unwilling to develop this article because they feel the first would be justified in their campaign. It would mean a bit less about astrology in some articles but where that happened they should have a see also or main pointing to this article and should still give the major points even if they don't go into the subject in detail. Dmcq (talk) 16:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I prefer not to vote on this because I have been in ongoing discussions with editor Zachariel. Deleting Stars in astrology is without merit because there is also Planets in astrology, Asteroids in astrology and Centaurs in astrology, long standing articles with a similar name and purpose. There is enough historical evidence and quality sources about the use of stars for astrology to have a WP article about it. One editor brought Zachariel's own material about the astrology of Algol here, only to see it promptly reverted by him before he put this article up for deletion. Why would that be? See the history. MakeSense64 (talk) 16:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It isn't a vote anyway, it depends on looking at the arguments made in detail if the overall opinion isn't straightforward. You have argued against the deletion. Dmcq (talk) 11:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Here is the problem with the page (apart from its numerous issues which exist because no one wants to develop this page due to this problem): - the discussion page begins with the comment
 * "I suggest you move astrological meanings of stars from respective star articles here. If the star has a substantial historical section, something could be mentioned there briefly (in one sentence, for example). More detailed descriptions should be added only into this article.--JyriL talk 23:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)"

- this is what is causing confusion: the idea that anything other than a one sentence reference cannot be made elsewhere and so all cultural and astrological star reference must all be lumped together on this one page instead. That's entirely impractical, borders on censorship and has been used as a justification to delete content from elsewhere. This page isn't doing anything valuable at present; it is just creating unnecesary confusion and controversy. If the policy could be clarified, and the page used as an introduction to the subject and a reference list to material covered eslewhere then it would be worth keeping and could serve a good purpose; but it would need a clarification of its purpose to serve as a central resource for other information rather than the only place on Wikipedia where this sort of star information could be given Zac  Δ talk   16:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What is on the Talk page can never be a reason to delete an article.
 * An article being poorly developped is in itself never a reason not to develop it.
 * How this article is developped is entirely in the hands of the editors. If some day it becomes too long, editors will split it up when the need arises. So what is the problem? MakeSense64 (talk) 17:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Topic is notable. The info in the article seems good, although no sources are now given. No reason to delete. Astrological info on each star should also be allowed in its own article.  Until we start visiting them individual stars will have very little practical importance to us here on Earth, so mythological or imaginative material should not be excluded. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The article is only "bad" insofar as it is really nothing more than a stub. Nom describes issues that can be addressed as the content matures; they're not fatal flaws.  I can see this article having a different sort of discussion than an article about a cultural viewpoint, although they would be related.  This is not to day in the future, that maybe the article should be renamed or merged... or even deleted.  But, IMHO, the noms argument does not hold water. Roodog2k (talk) 20:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Someone can be bold and change the article's name and content to something like "List of Stars with Cultural Significance"... just saying... Roodog2k (talk) 20:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I've acted on Roodog2k's suggestion. If this is seen as a resolution to the problem then I am happy to personally withdraw the deletion request. However, I have concerns about my expectation: despite the general consensus that the page deserves development, the likely reality is that no one will commit to the task. This page was created by an astronomer and someone then tagged it as falling within the scope of both the Wiki astronomy project and the Wiki astrology project - then the astronomy project (not surprisingly) pulled their 'scope' tag within a matter of days. Currently the astrology project is suffering from a lack of contributing editors who already have their hands full, so who is going to do this? Anyone here, who believes in the merits of the page? I certainly cannot because I have already accepted a too long list of obligations to improve the content of other astrology-related pages, to preserve them from the prospect of speedy deletion or the prospect of later deletion.


 * So keep in mind that we have a situation here where a page that doesn't have a single link from other WP pages, where there is almost as much content in the many page tags as the article, is going to require an investment of time and ongoing maintenance to make it capable of collating information rather than fragmenting it. The main content of this page was added when, in 1996, a single editor decided to remove the astrological reference from the page on Alderbaran (see diff) despite the fact that, previously, the astrological information had always been a major component of that page (see for example). I will do what I can, within reason, to help on this project, providing the existence of this page does not constitute a policy that moderate and pertinent references to the cultural and astrological meanings of stars must then be excluded from other pages, or that lengthier coverage cannot be given in dedicated pages which are prominently linked to from the main star feature. That seems to be my understanding of the general consensus here.   Zac  Δ talk   12:02, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * *Comment, You are very quick to act on one editor's suggestion.
 * Since you are changing the name of the article, does that mean you are withdrawing your deletion request?
 * I am asking to revert the change of the page and the title of that page. One editor suggesting something doesn't mean there is a concensus to do it.
 * Given the ongoing discussion on Talk:Algol it is clear that you want to delete (or change) this page, because you want to insert an astrology section on Algol. So your wanting to delete (or change) this page is not coming from a NPOV about this page. MakeSense64 (talk) 12:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't have a dog in this fight, but assuming good faith on everybody's part, I just want to clarify my position. Nom basically wants/wanted to delete the page b/c is sucks and no one is working on it.  That's not a valid reason to delete a page.  My suggestion was to be bold and make it better.  It seems to me that the page is actually better now, but that's my opinion, you may disagree.  But, I think a list of stars with cultural significance is a useful thing, whether it's related to astrology or not.  Regarding not having a NPOV view about this page... I don't see it.  Astrology exists; people practice it.  It seems more to me that not wanting astrological content constitutes a POV issue.  I do not practice astrology, but it doesn't mean I don't have an academic interest in it. Roodog2k (talk) 13:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Somebody was working on this page, but nom reverted the change before putting the page up for deletion. Not only that, the material that was being added here was nom's own material about the astrology of Algol. Check the page history if you want.
 * So it is not that I and a few others don't want astrological content here, just the opposite: we want the astrology of Algol and other stars to be here. But that's what nom doesn't want because he wants to insert larger sections of astrology into Algol the astronomy page. This page here is unconvenient for his plans. So now he changed it into a list article, because he sees most votes are 'keep'. But the content of the article has hardly changed. Now an article with a practical and short name 'Stars in astrology' has changed title to 'List of stars with noted cultural and astrological significance'. Where is the improvement? We could have made the name even longer so that absolutely nobody ever finds that page. MakeSense64 (talk) 13:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Personally, I don't like the name. I understand what I everyone is saying, and recognize that there is a disconnect here.  I voted to keep the page, and left my comments to encourage everyone to work together to make it better.  If a concensus cannot be reached, AfD is not the way to go.  There are other avenues to explore that would involve the larger community, maybe if the scope of the discussion is expanded, new ideas would emerge to tackle these issues?  I apologize to all of you if I made a bad situation worse, it wasn't my intent. Roodog2k (talk) 14:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. I have expanded the Stars in astrology page with a very brief and sketchy set of introductory paragraphs that surely can be expanded at some length.  While I was in the process of expanding it, the page was moved from under me to List of stars in astrology.  I was trying to add text to make the article more than just a list of stars.  Now we have two separate articles.  My inclination would be to delete List of stars in astrology as a less developed content fork of the page now at Stars in astrology.  But now the history may be muddled. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. I had to move List of stars in astrology back here to keep all the history as well as the expanded material, so that has been done. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:53, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * There was a technical glitch on WP this afternoon, which meant that I lost the comments I was posting on this, and that's probably why the move got effected. Nothing seems to have been lost though. Re withdrawing the AfD, obviously I would not want to proceed with the request for deletion if someone has a desire to contribute and develop the page and is starting to attend to it. I'm not sure of the proceedure to withdraw the request - but is that necessary anyway since there's obviously a consensus to keep; I (as the nominator) have no intention to argue otherwise anymore, and I've just read that even if the consensus was split "Discussions which fail to reach rough consensus default to "keep"." Since the discussion is bringing positive attention to the page, I'd rather let it roll until it elapses. But will happy withdraw the request if that is the thing to do.  Zac  Δ talk   17:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That makes sense, thanks. You can either let the AfD run or ask on WP:AN for an admin to close it. as keep Itsmejudith (talk) 18:04, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - it's now a fringe topic, but up through Isaac Newton's day it was quite the notable topic. This is a well-cited article. Bearian (talk) 21:38, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep (to formalise). I have done what Itsmejudith suggested and asked for an admin to close this thread. Regards, Zac  Δ talk   12:26, 14 July 2011 (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.