Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:13, 29 March 2012

Mundane astrology

Mundane astrology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A fork of Astrology, with no sources to support this as an independent subject. Further, it has been written as if astrology had actual predictive qualities, with no citations for the predictions. In fact, the only citation in the "Historical predictions" section is one pointing out that Nostradamus may not have used astrology. — The Hand That Feeds You: 21:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• • The arguments for Merge and Redirect make sense, and I would Support that. I've just not found enough supporting material for this article to stand on its own. — The Hand That Feeds You: 22:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete: Extremely poorly sourced and largely unsourceable POV fork of Astrology. I've spent A LOT of time dealing with sourcing on astrology-related articles, and have found that useful reliable sources are extremely difficult to find. In this case, my own search turned up very little, and that was only of very limited usefulness. Contains little, if anything, of encyclopedic value that can be verified using reliable independent sources. Would support Merge and redirect if HIGH-QUALITY reliable sources can be found. Not in-universe claptrap like the sources currently used in the article. However, I highly doubt that such sources exist for anything more than a very brief mention in the main Astrology article. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Anything we lose could be merged into Astrology without too much trouble. --John (talk) 05:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. Mundane astrology is a well known independent field of astrology with numerous books by that title. A special article is warranted. If everything is put into the main astrology article it would become too unwieldly. The article needs to be cleaned up. Hapmano (talk) 08:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC) — Hapmano (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Oppose Merge and redirect. The article on Mundane astrology needs to be redrafted. Pursuant to that, a summary section on mundane astrology should be added to the main Astrology article.Hapmano (talk) 09:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC) — Hapmano (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep. A Google search throws up lots of evidence that this is a notable field of astrology - just click on the "books" and "scholar" links above, for example. I agree it could do with improving and some better sourcing (and I'm sorry I don't have time to help), but that's not what AFD is for. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep per Boing! said Zebedee. If I have time in the afternoon, I'll try to work on it a little. ~dee 11:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep While the current article does contain a lot of rubbish this does not mean the article is unfixable. Yes it is stuffed full of unsourced material and original research, but the article can probably be improved. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect (and rewrite for NPOV) as a section of Astrology. It's notable enough that it's necessary to cover this, I think, but it's unnecessary to fork it off at this time. No prejudice to re-fork if the Astrology article gets too long. - Jorgath (talk) 15:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect This page probably doesn't have enough sourcing to support more than a paragraph or three and it's not clear that it is distinct enough from astrology to have its own article. My suggestion is to condense what we can based on the RSs and then create a new section on the main astrology page. SÆdon 22:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

That sounds good, and then if the sources can be mustered to show notability it can be split off again. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I could go with that too. Whether it should be a separate article or a section in Astrology depends on how much content can be reliably sourced - if there's enough, a separate article (with a summary section in the main article), and if not, a full section in the main article. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect as per Saedon. --Salimfadhley (talk) 13:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep The nomination is a blatant falsehood as it claims "no sources to support this as an independent subject" when the article has an entire book of this title in its list of sources. Warden (talk) 16:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  • A book title is not a citation, and I resent the accusation. We have no idea if they're even using the term in the same meaning as portrayed in the article. — The Hand That Feeds You: 17:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
    • The book's subtitle is An introduction to the astrology of nations and groups. This corresponds exactly to the usage of the article and so the source supports it. If you have "no idea" about these matters then you should please follow our deletion policy before starting a discussion of this kind. Warden (talk) 18:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
      • This article spans everything from "nations and groups" to natural and manmade objects, as well as Nostradamus' predictions. If you want properly define the term and actually cite the book, feel free. But do not keep insinuating I did not follow process. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete* Obvious POV fork. Could be covered in one paragraph on the main article page. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete, possibly by merging and redirecting, but the sources are really, really awful, and I doubt actual good sources can be found to justify a full article. 86.** IP (talk) 00:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Request for reassessment. Recent changes have been made to the description and citations by several editors. Other editors are asked to re-assess the encyclopedic merits of this article in view of the changes.Hapmano (talk) 09:32, 29 March 2012 (UTC) — Hapmano (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I still don't see the need for a separate article. From my perspective, the only parts worth using are the lede and the overview section, which would be ok as as subsection on the main page. The other sections don't seem to add anything encyclopedic to the article and seem mostly conjectural. SÆdon 09:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I've reread the article, and my Delete !vote still stands. The sources used are in-universe fringe sources that do not satisfy WP:RS. The only ones that are reliable are Dawkins, which states that the subject of the article is pseuocientific nonsense, and Hartman, which says that there is no evidence for the scientific validity of the subject. The rest are "for-entertainment-purposes-only" in-universe sources of zero encyclopedic value. Sorry, I can't see this article being expanded beyond a basic definition and a statement that it is unsubstantiated pseudoscience supported by the Dawkins and Hartman cites. Everything else that's there, or could be added, is basically nonsense. Move it to Astrowiki . It simply doesn't belong here. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

My delete still stands; there don't appear to be reliable sources to talk about it at this lengt A full 2/3rds is cited to wikis (http://www.astro.com) , blogs ( http://iipa.net/IIPA2010DH/usa_chart.htm gives a blogspot page as its source at the bottom), or not cited at all, and the rest appears to be fringe books by non-notable people from what appear to be specialist publishers. At the very least, if you could cite some Greek thinker on it, or notable mediaeval philosophers, or, at the very least, someone qualified as an expert scholar on the subject, I'd need to reconsider; as it stands, no. 86.** IP (talk) 13:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

A reference is made to Ptolemy's Book on Mundane Astrology in the Tetrabiblos as well as the works of noted historians in the field of astrology. Such contributions do not deserve to be branded "in-universe" and thus non reliable. Granted more work is needed to adequately develop the article. A stay of execution is in order.Hapmano (talk) 14:26, 29 March 2012 (UTC) — Hapmano (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

For Ptolemy, find a modern reliable REAL academic source to support it. We can't use the primary source itself. However, there are still problems. That section gives the impression that there is some sort of continuity between Greco-Roman, Islamic and modern astrology, when there clearly isn't.

As for "noted historians in the field", I take it you are referring to Nick Campion. You're free to use his REAL peer-reviewed work, but his non-peer reviewed work and pseudo-academic work is just about worthless, particularly on this topic.

The most you'll get out of this, though, is a solid definition of what mundane astrology is, or rather was, or rather was supposed to be. You're also going to run into a practically insurmountable problem when it comes to modern astrology, namely that there are practically no reliable sources on the topic. Very few scholars have been interested enough to write seriously on the topic in reliable independent sources. Sorry, but the in-universe sources are flat out. They do not constitute a part of serious scholarly discourse on the topic, as they are not considered worthy of consideration for any purpose except, perhaps, entertainment by any serious scholars outside of the "astrological community". That's what "in-universe" means.

I don't see any good reason for a stay of execution, as you put it. The article is overwhelmingly blither. If you shave that away, you're left with, at best, a definition and the pseudoscience statements. Nowhere even close enough for a stand-alone article, or for more that a very brief mention in the main Astrology article. There really is no hope of substantially expanding the article using REAL realiable sources, as practically none exist.

There are more productive ways for you to spend your time here on WP than putting lipstick on a donkey, and a dying donkey at that. Or try your luck over at Astrowiki or another "astrology-friendy" site. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Holden's History of Horoscopic Astrology is another source. Clearly, sub-fields of astrology are of interest to 'specialists' within the field. To expect specialists from other disciplines to evaluate this field is a straw man argument. Let's keep the case against astrology out of this discussion, as it is a separate matter and is, in any case, handled in this and the main astrology article. There are likely plenty of other sources, but gathering them takes time.Hapmano (talk) 15:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC) — Hapmano (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Merge and redirect Simply insufficient sourcing to justify a separate article - all it merits is a short section in astrology. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep The assertion of insufficient sourcing utterly ignores the fact that WP policy is to require that articles CAN be sourced, not that they ARE CURRENTLY sourced. Moreover, the Books and Scholar links should have made this a slam-dunk. All objections here proceed from a prejudice, which is that articles on astrology will corrupt the minds of the readers. Because of this prejudice, the most basic of critical thinking falls by the wayside. For example, Astrology is thousands of years old; there are sources available, can you possibly deny it? So I will break with my tradition of taking articles off-site without mention. It is transcribed to http://hippie.wikia.com/Mundane_astrology and should be reintroduced at a later time. Do not expect it to work straight away, though; Misplaced Pages editors have a superstition all their own, which is that articles on astrology are from Da Debil (eyeroll). Anarchangel (talk) 22:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Voting coordination?

Apparently the AfD idea for this article originated at FringeTheory/noticeboard, thus advertising the idea to a larger community within WP that has a clear bias (as per the name of the noticeboard) in the matter. Such advertising seems to be a form of voting coordination. Is that acceptable as per WP rules?Hapmano (talk) 15:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC) — Hapmano (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Are you kidding? I saw it on FTN and voted keep, I would wager several others did too. FTN deals with undue weight, the article was posted there to attract editors to help deal with the undue weight issues at the article. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

If posting on a noticeboard constitutes 'coordination', Misplaced Pages is going to have problems. Ridiculous... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Indiscernible or unclassifiable topic)
• AfD debates