Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Systems' Approach for Interpreting Horoscopes


 * 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 of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 09:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Systems' Approach for Interpreting Horoscopes
Delete well, because its crap, not worth having in Wikipedia San Saba 18:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

---keep without testing a system, opinion should not be formed.[user: manofletters]11:00, 4th May 2007Manofletters 05:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC) You "Zodiac sceptics" are just too much. Just because you people disagree with astrology or whatever does not mean it is crap. Actually, to obliterate information because you disagree with it is nothing short of FASCISM. This information has relevance for a lot of people who are interested in astrology and believe in its efficacy and have seen it demonstrated in their lives. The information concerns an author of many books who has lectured around the world, has a web page with over one million hits and students all over the world. If you want to delete something, why don´t you consider some of the crap you may be interested in or believe in. If you delete the article, it will be reinstated and a complaint lodged. I am new at this and really don´t know Wikipedia protocol very well, but take the liberty of removing the DELETION TAG. It just strikes me as being a very unjust and uncircumspect action - just consider the comments by this user above. As stated in the History page, a further edit is being considered to reconcile opposing viewpoints. Ramayan 19:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Ramayan, please do not "take the liberty" of removing the delete tag. As the tag itself says:
 * You are welcome to edit this article, but please do not blank this article or remove this notice while the discussion is in progress.
 * Removing the tag counts as vandalism, especially repeated removal. You are, of course, more than welcome to defend the article (not, please, your Zodiacal beliefs; your beliefs are not relevant here and this discussion is about the article) here and/or on its talk page, and to edit the article as you see fit, within WP criteria. Tonywalton | Talk 19:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 *  Weak Keep pending POV cleanup. Not having a belief in something doesn't automatically make it "crap". I personally don't believe that yarrow stalks are a reliable means of divination, but I'm not about to AfD I Ching on the strength of that. Tonywalton | Talk 19:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep pending a real nomination. The word "crap" is insulting, offensive and constitutes an attack. It is not acceptable for a nomination and "not worth having" also tells me nothing. The editors who worked on this article deserve a minimum of respect from you. Provide a cogent argument or withdraw this nomination. -- JJay 19:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed 100%. Changing my vote as above. Tonywalton | Talk 19:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for heads up on tag deletion. Relieved to see a more circumspect approach taken towards the article in question. Further edits of it are being considered. Ramayan 19:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep I don't see that a good-faith reason to delete has been asserted. If consensus becomes speedy keep, we should just go ahead and close this. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 21:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Article has serious problems, most notably in the controversy section... which should be relabeled criticism and be expunged of the subtle attempt to justify the main text of the article while making it appear to be a counterpoint.  That being said this is a badly done nom.  Unless you have a valid reason (WP:NOR, WP:V, etc.) there is no reason to delete.--Isotope23 21:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I have been disappointed with Ramayan's approach. I have attempted to make the article NPOV and have added a criticism section which he has continually deleted or alterered.  He (I'm assuming a 'he') has failed to understand NPOV and it irritates me no end that he puts such advertising gumph and cobblers on wikipedia.  That said, there appears to be people who believe in this stuff and therefore we need to include it in a comprehensive encyclopaedia.  It just needs to be written properly.  Come on Ramayan, you have got my vote to 'keep', so if it kept, let's work together to have a neutral article? Maustrauser 22:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Mousis have trousis? :-) I've noticed your repeated and fruitless attempts to edit down the POV, Maustrauser (and I'll put the "gumph', "cobblers" and "stuff" in your post above down to pure frustration rather than a lack of civility). Perhaps, Ramayan, you can assume good faith in future (on the part of most editors, anyway), and please don't immediately assume that an effort to make an article neutral (you do know what we all mean by "NPOV", by the way?)  is an attack on the subject of the article itself! Tonywalton  | Talk 22:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Mousis do have trousis (at least where I live!) Yes, I apologise to Ramayan for my intemperate language.  I was frustrated. Maustrauser 23:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep: Lots of people care about horoscopes, and an article about methods surrounding them is encyclopedic. I would, however, keep NPOV for the 'controversy', because I don't think there's much question that horoscopes are entertainment, not science. Peter Grey 04:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the group spirit of administrators and members of Wikipedia and the apparent consensus to keep this article. I´ve entered a new version of the article, with a bit more elaboration on theory and also the original criticism by Maustrauser but with a section offering a rational reply. Hopefully this meets the standards of NPOV. Your comments are welcome on talk page or to insert factual changes in article as per your best judgement. Thanks. Ramayan 07:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep --Ter e nce Ong 13:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep "crap" is not a reason for deletion NickelShoe 20:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep Clearly, the vote is to keep this article. It should be done ASAP. Jorgeangelino 19:17, 20 February 2006 (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.