Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Advisory Panel on Astrological Education

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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:28, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Advisory Panel on Astrological Education[edit]

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

No coverage in google news, google books, google journals. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG at the most basic level IRWolfie- (talk) 20:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article already has a reference to one good reliable independent source and as an organisation this is a very important one within its field. This general [web search] demonstrates its notability. I'm sure this will not suit IRWolfie, who appears to be to be targetting astrology-related content very verociously of late. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 21:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The google search doesn't demonstrate anything, please consult the above guidelines and policies. Please focus on issues not editors. Which one reference is the "good reliable independent source"? IRWolfie- (talk) 21:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Does not satisfy WP:GNG or WP:ORG. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 23:56, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete? unless the following issues can be addressed:

--If the "good reliable independent source" is the Directory of British associations & associations in Ireland vol.18 p.116, this would seem to fail the test of significant coverage in an independent source. Sorry Zac, maybe there's another source out there -- I'd check Peter Whitfield's history of astrology which is recent enough (2004) to mention it.
--The google search linked by Zac shows exclusively "in-universe" sources within the astrological community. These are independent of the organization in question, but for a "pseudoscience" topic, my understanding is that isn't good enough. Please correct me if I am wrong.--Other Choices (talk) 01:13, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reliable source I was referring to is James Lewis' Astrology Encyclopedia. This book has been reviewed in previous discussions on reliable sources for astrological content and was recommended as a good source of info for this topic.

On the second point, independent astrological publications can be used for content about astrological organisations. Subjects defined as alternative or fringe are not excluded from Wikipedia on the basis that they are alternative or fringe. Consider this was an organisation that established policies for education in music, we wouldn't say its notability can't be established because the books that discuss its relevancy are dedicated to music matters. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 01:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Zac, I don't know if the results of the google search qualify as "notable," but if Lewis's encyclopedia of astrology is acceptable to other editors as a reliable source, and if the coverage therein qualifies as "significant," then I change my assessment to keep.--Other Choices (talk) 01:53, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call the coverage in Lewis significant, since its focus is on Nicholas Campion's role in the association. I would say it gives demonstration of recognition by a good reliable independent source and my arguments for keeping are that this association is known to be important within astrology for the role it plays in assessing standards of practice, and the notability is shown by the references I gave earlier. For a page like this that offers outline information on what an association is and what it does, do we really need or expect 'significant coverage' to be given outside of in-universe sources- plenty of details in astrology journals from around the time of its creation -- Zac Δ ^talk! 03:40, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep what is already included in a printed encyclopedia is surely suitable for being included on Wikipedia. Cavarrone (talk) 06:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which encyclopedia did you confirm it was in and which page? IRWolfie- (talk) 09:33, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This page is part of WP's problematic walled garden of astrology pages that are based on poor sourcing and lack notability outside of a very fringe minority (i.e. in universe). Taking a look at [1], one can see that this page is an orphan with the exception of redirects and user space links, and there's no real reason that other pages would link here anyway. As a serious encyclopedia we should not be hosting articles on such ancillary aspects of a pseudoscientific topic unless they are noticed and commented on by the mainstream; this precludes using organizations like the Astrological Society of Britain in the same way that we shouldn't use the Flat Earth Society to establish notability of random flat earth related organizations. The other source, an encyclopedia of astrology, again demonstrates that this is a niche topic that doesn't warrant coverage in a general purpose encyclopedia. Sædon^talk 21:53, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not much to find about this in reliable independent sources, which makes notability very questionable. Looking at the sources currently used in this article: Ref #1 comes directly from one of the member "school's" website, so is not independent. Ref #2 is just a mention in a "directory". Ref #3 seems OK. Ref #4 is a wordpress blog with only one post in June 2009. If no better sources can be found then there is no good reason to keep this article. MakeSense64 (talk) 08:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Little if any mention of this in independent reliable sources, and even in the unreliable in-universe sources, mention is scant or tangential. My own Google, Google Books and Google Scholar searches turned up nothing even fainly promising. Clearly fails all of our notability requirements. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:18, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking independent coverage. Note that organisations they accredit are not independent. See also Accreditation mill. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:27, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.