Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Urania Trust


 * 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. The consensus is that while sources could be found, they either don't meet WP:RS or are no more than passing mentions, and thus are insufficient to meet WP:GNG. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Urania Trust

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Fails WP:CORP by lacking significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Current sourcing is all in-universe by fringe publications/publishers. Google news archives give only a single passing mention. S Æ don talk 20:09, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG. Beyond the above source, the only other I could fine was . I'm surprised this non-notable topic doesn't even have passing mentions. Totally non-notable. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:09, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete; lacks substantial coverage by independent sources. bobrayner (talk) 08:17, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: I could find no independent sources to establish notability, only scant tangential mentions. The subject is notable only within a fringe walled garden, and the sourcing is entirely in-universe and unreliable. There is nothing of encyclopedic value to keep or merge. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:27, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. 20:08, 19 August 2012 (UTC)  • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. 20:37, 19 August 2012 (UTC)  • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - A diverse variety of mentions (not merely passing mentions) on independent astrology-related websites, plus UK charities registration, and backlinks from other Wikipedia articles (when I Googled this organization's name, I found that it appears in a number of Wikipedia articles, only some of which had backlinks to this article; I have started to add more) convince me that this organization is notable within the astrology arena. Without looking at the article to see what sources it cited, I compiled a list of some of what I found about this organization. Only one of these weblinks cited and only one of the two books that I highlighted is currently mentioned in the article:
 * Fairly substantial coverage of the Urania Trust in an article, on some unrelated astrology website, about the Trust's role in a campaign to establish a chair in astrology at a British university. (I would imagine that this campaign has received mainstream attention over the years.)
 * Obituary for an astrologer, in a newsletter on an astrology site apparently unaffiliated with Urania Trust, that lauds his work with the Urania Trust. Also see -- page on another astrology website mentioning this man's role in the Urania Trust.
 * Announcement of Urania Trust grant programs, in a 2005 newsletter of another astrology organization
 * Charity registration info and financial data for Urania Trust
 * Page 811 of a compendious book about astrology is a list of magazines and periodicals about astrology that is indicated to have been developed by the Urania Trust.
 * One of many links lists on other astrology websites that includes a link to the Urania Trust. This one describes it as a "respected source". Here's another link to Urania that describes it is a registered charity and tells when it was established.
 * The Urania Trust seems to have published a bunch of books, such as this one and this other one (both of these books are available from both Google Books and Amazon) - One of these books is listed in the Wikipedia article right now.
 * Another obituary for an astrologer that mentions the role that Urania Trust played in her activities.
 * There's more than enough here to substantiate that this organization is notable within the field of astrology. The fact that I think astrology is claptrap does not change the fact that astrology is a notable topic; accordingly, people and organizations deemed notable within the field are worthy of coverage in this encyclopedia. --Orlady (talk) 23:46, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Reply - I have taken a look in these sources:
 * Your first source is a trivial mention, where most of the article is about The Sophia Centre, for which we have an article.
 * The obituary of an astrologer. According to the first source that astrologer was the chairman of Urania Trust, so it's kind of normal to see it mentioned in his obituary. That doesn't make this organization notable.
 * Announcements of grants, registration as a charity, and being mentioned in lists of links. That does also not qualify for notability either.
 * Having published books is also not sufficient. Not every organization (or author) that has published some books is notable for a WP article.
 * Another obituary is also offering only a passing mention (which is not even easy to find in the article).
 * So, none of these sources meet wp standards. They merely confirm that Urania Trust "exists" indeed. But better sources, with in depth coverage about Urania Trust, will be needed to establish notability for this organization. MakeSense64 (talk) 09:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The requirement is significant coverage, not just a passing mention. These sources just give passing mentions. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Quoting WP:CORP: "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. [...] Deep coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about an organization." Based on the sources presented above, we are still lacking depth of coverage.  Further, using fringe sources to determine that a fringe subject is notable is nonsense.  If no one outside of the fringe group is paying attention then we shouldn't be paying attention.  S Æ don talk 23:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "Trivial or incidental coverage" would mean items along the lines of "the bride is employed as a editor for Urania Trust", not items like the sources I cited above, which deal with this organization's activities in its main area of interest. If any one of these individual items was the only coverage we had found for this organization, it would not suffice to demonstrate notability, but the collective and cumulative effect of the various items does show notability. It seems to me that the repeated assertions that astrology is a "fringe subject" are thinly disguised WP:IDONTLIKEIT statements -- that's not a valid reason for deleting an article. --Orlady (talk) 02:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * IDLI is not a valid reason, correct, but since that in no way was my argument it's not relevant. It's a straw man that misrepresents my position.  Astrology is in fact a fringe subject and fringe subjects should only have articles if they can be substantiated by non-fringe sourcing.  Astrology, for instance, uses mainstream sources to substantiate notability and is therefore deserving of an article, but notability is not inherited and so the fact that an organization is astrological in nature does not mean that it is de facto notable.  Your line of reasoning would work fine at astrowiki, but it doesn't work for a general purpose encyclopedia. The only nonfringe sources that discuss it do so in a trivial manner.  S Æ don talk 01:05, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep By Orlady's research and through references currently provided by the article (I don't know when these were added) I find it convincingly evidenced that this organization falls within Wikipedia's notability requirements. __meco (talk) 07:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you show an example source which you believe demonstrates significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. The ones I see here and in the article only give passing mentions. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: I've reviewed the sources found by Orlady and have to agree with MakeSense, IRWolfie and Saedon that they are all either unreliable, trivial or tangential, and none of them contribute any notability to the subject, even when taken together. I've searched long and hard, as the topic interests me, but have still not found anything substantial in reliable sources, and even in the in-universe fringe sources, coverage is surprisingly scant. Still think the article should be deleted. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:44, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that the sources in the article and provided in this discussion art insufficient for a separate article, however, I think the bulk of this content -say the History and Charitable Aim sections, could be incorporated in the article for its founder, and for 12 years its chairman, John Addey. I would therefore merge then redirect this to its own section in his article. Xymmax  So let it be written   So let it be done  14:54, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm almost always in favor of a merge/redirect over deletion when possible so I support this. S Æ don talk 23:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - There's a few mentions in reliable sources:
 * in a footnote
 * ""He joined the Astrological Association of Great Britain in 1963 and had as his mentor the late John M Addey, whom he succeeded as chairman of the association and latterly patron. In 1966 he obtained the Diploma of the Faculty of Astrological Studies and later was appointed its vice-president. He pioneered the comprehensive training of faculty students and led the development of the Urania Trust, an educational charity which until last year ran the Astrological Study Centre in London. He also played a prominent role in the Jungian-based Centre for Psychological Studies.""


 * Maggie Hyde, Globe and Mail, Charles Harvey Promoted astrology as serious discipline, Page R12, (March 3, 2000) ("In 1998, a benefactor enabled him to initiate the Sophia Project, under the aegis of the astrological charity Urania Trust. The project aims to advance the study of "real astrology in higher education," and is finding small niches for serious astrology within academia.")
 * However, it's not enought for a stand alone article per WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 23:10, 26 August 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.