Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Astrotheology

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. Sandstein 17:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Astrotheology[edit]

Non-notable neologism, looks to be promotion for Zeitgeist (film); any useful content could apparently be on astrology. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep instead of referring it to wiktionary - Probably because the article would be a stub forever if there would be no mention to the film? There are a couple of books about the subject and a dozen of mentions in others but I am not sure if they discuss it in depth, beyond its definition. -- GarbageCollection - ^!Collect 14:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless better sourced. The term is not common, but that problem could be solved by moving the article to astrology and religion. There's a more serious issue: disregarding the one popular documentary it cites, the article doesn't provide any evidence that there exists a field of study treating the relations between astrology and religion across multiple astrological or religious traditions. Without that, the article could only duplicate parts of articles about specific traditions (Babylonian astrology, etc.). EALacey (talk) 15:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not finding anything to support a connection between horoscope predictions and astrotheology, so maybe the astrology-stub was a bad pick on my part. Maybe you can suggest a better stub related topic to avoid the confusion? — Dzonatas 17:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The philosophy-stub template, as is now included, is perhaps more appropriate. I should have written "astronomy and religion" above rather than "astrology and religion", but I think my point stands: there does not seem to be significant cross-cultural study of "astronomy and religion". I suggest that separate articles on topics like Christian attitudes to astronomy would be a better way of handling this material. EALacey (talk) 20:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move this discussion to relative talk page: Koavf (talk · contribs)'s reason for AfD is not a reason for deletion. As stated in WP:DP, "Disputes over page content are not dealt with by deleting the page." This is a discussion that needs to start on the article's relative discussion page. I think Garbage Collection (talk · contribs) put it concisely that it "would be a stub forever if there would be no mention to the film," and that's similar to what I thought when I added the mention of of the film -- strictly for reference to continue to expand the article, which there are many references (170) available from the film's website. I used the term myself even to describe to people about native american beliefs and paganism (which astrology alone doesn't cover). Part of the reason is stated as neologism, but that would mean that should shouldn't be on AfD but should be merged with another article. There is, however, no other article that I found that mixes astrology, astronomy, and religion in what astrotheology covers. I made a contribution to Wikipedia to help expand this article. I hate to see AfDs be used to prevent contributions. — Dzonatas 21:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is what Wiktionary is for. The "sources" cited in the article are impressive-looking, but they are (1) a dictionary definition (2) a definition from the first Google books entry from a search of the term and (3) a quote from the movie Zeitgeist. When it was started two weeks ago, this article was a stub, and it's clearly not going anywhere. Mandsford (talk) 00:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What is the rush to delete this? (see WP:CHANCE) If the question was if it was going anywhere or no, that could have been concluded with a simple WP:PROD. AfD is not the place to dispute content of an article. — Dzonatas 00:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Koavf (talk · contribs) needs to justify why he thought it was was neologism when the term obviously existed in 1913 (see refs). I assume the user didn't try to verify it before putting the AfD tag on the article. It was neither a (1) recently created word nor (2) synthesized. — Dzonatas 00:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Do notice that none of the people above that voted delete have attempted to expand the stub (see WP:INSPECTOR), as their names are not listed in the logs in any edit on the article or discussion page. — Dzonatas 00:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I put up some sources for review in case anybody feels they have time and effort to mark this article for deletion will probably find the same time and effort to research one of the sources and try to improve the article first. — Dzonatas 01:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:NOTE. Only substantive source to date is Astrotheology and Shamanism, which gives no indication that it is scholarly in content and is published by Book Tree, which is self-decribed as a publisher of "controversial and educational products to help awaken the public to new ideas and information that would otherwise not be available" -- and clearly on the WP:FRINGE. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 10:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC) The webpage of the book's authors, GnosticMedia, likewise seems very WP:FRINGE. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 10:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: on closer examination, 'astrotheology' would appear to be an obscure and archaic term for natural theology that is based upon astronomy. I cannot however in good conscience recommend this article's merger into that article, as the current material is too garbled to either demonstrate this point or to be useful. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 08:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC) I have ungarbled some of the cited material to new content, but also copied this content across to natural theology, so my recommendation is still to delete (with possible later replacement with a redirect). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 11:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC) The Modern Predicament: A Study In The Philosophy Of Religion, H. J. Paton, 2004, p20 confirms that Astrotheology is Natural Theology that is based upon astronomy. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - highly non-notable term; article appears to have been created to help cross-promote the movie. Anything useful there could go under astrology; indeed, the term apparently was coined originally to avoid the opprobrium attached to "astrology"; and recently revived for the same reason. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not finding anything to support a connection between horoscope predictions and astrotheology, so maybe the astrology-stub was a bad pick on my part. Maybe you can suggest a better stub related topic to avoid the confusion? — Dzonatas 17:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I first started to edit this article with what little it had. I added Zeitgeist because it was clear that the movie mentioned astrotheology (it spelled it out right on screen and covered the topic of the word age compared to the word end, see astrological age). I also noticed it had the notability tag on it. Obviously, it needs sources to establish notability. After the first and only discussion on the talk page, someone slaps this AfD on the article. There was no other discussion brought up on the talk page. Nobody questioned anything beyond the mention of the Zeitgeist-astrotheology addition. I then find sources. First source that comes up is Merriam-Webster that dates the word back to at least 1913. I also find more than several mentions of the name (like google hits). It does appear notable to wikipedia standards beyond neologism and to use as a NPOV article. I add the ref. I also found the Maxwell's Astrotheology movie/documentary and noted that for general ref (I haven't directly cited it, but its general discussion is being considered). I watched several short documentaries found (not hard to find them), and one mentioned the book Astrotheology & Shamanism. I discovered it was on google books, which made it easy to cite directly to the page for anybody to verify. This is on AfD, so I add refs from this book to resolve the complaint (which could have been discussed on the talk page). Immediately, I see a "delete" comment above that shoots down such addition I just made (so the delete-vote wasn't made about the article state but at the contribution after AfD notice). I list several other sources that other wikipedians could use to verify or find reliable sources besides the one I started on. I have yet to see anybody try. About astrology-stub, it is the one I picked from the list of available and I noted in my comments that it does actually cover more than that. I don't know what is the best way to note a stub that crosses several stub-topics. I think the people who voted "delete" above need to clarify their comments and back them up with sources for the claims they made against the topic. Many of them shouldn't be voting delete based on their explanation that actually justifies an expand or merge. I don't think the purpose of wikipedia it to foster a place for people to mainly write delete comments rather than try to contribute or discuss issues on the article's talk page. — Dzonatas 16:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply You can "userfy" this if you believe that you can make it more of an article. What you would do is copy the article to a space that you would entitle "User:Dzonatas/Astrotheology" or whatever. I think it's fair to say that none of us who are voting to delete believe that astrotheology is anything more than pseudo-scientific nonsense, and none of us have any obligation or wish to give bestow some type of legitimacy to it. Gripe all you want to about how the system works, but all of us have had favorite articles deleted by the consensus process at one time or another. Mandsford (talk) 17:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The placement of an article in user space to edit is against the collaboration theme of wikipedia. This whole AfD should be based on the notability of the article -- nothing else. The discussion here, however, doesn't merely focus on notability. In fact, since notability was cited for the AfD, this process requires thought to what will establish notable. Per guidelines, it is not enough to simply claim a article is not notable and delete it. The AfD was made also about neologism, and I believe that has been resolved that it is not neologism. — Dzonatas 17:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I removed notability tag due to obvious verifiability (see discussion in talk page) and at least 3 secondary sources used to simply create the stub. I believe the article can be expanded much more since there is obviously more sources on the subject. The issue of of notability was resolved (even through the harsh attitudes seen towards my dyslexic entries). — Dzonatas 12:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: And I have replaced it -- the only substantive and reliable sources we have for the topic, Adaptations & Planetary Motions, place it as an obscure and archaic term for a subset of natural theology, that more properly belongs in a serious writeup (shorn of the unreliably-sourced new-age elements) in that article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 12:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Consider that Hrafn has made more than 3 reverts in one day on the article and left only thew view of natural theology in the article, it appears he has a personal bias to how he edits this article. Hrafn even deleted sources that even support other views, selectively narrowed the citations from the book Adapation that only talks about natural theology (despite the rough paradigm shifts, polytheist, monotheist, atheist, and scientific quotes that could be added), and tags every sentences in a paragraph even when a single ref covers the paragraph. All that doesn't make it easy to expand a stub. *shrugs* I wouldn't be surprised if people continue to put 'delete' on this AfD for this kind of activity. Nevertheless, slapping an AfD on a stub (that just start a few weeks ago) that already has a notability tag on it makes this AfD questionable, especially when being distracted here.— Dzonatas 17:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that Dzonatas learn to count before he makes accusations. I have made only two reverts on this article. In editing it I have given WP:DUE weight to WP:RSs that state that Astrotheology is a subfield of natural theology, and eliminated WP:UNDUE weight to unreliable/questionable sources that give a contradictory, neologistic, new-age meaning to the word. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These edits by Harfn can be seen as reverts without obvious reasons to justify this many reverts. Note that a day before, much of this content didn't even exist, so just deleting it or replacing it entirely (which is deleting the added content) can be seen as a revert. These were all done within a day:

Further, it remains unsubstantiated to claim that Astrotheology & Shamanism is WP:FRINGE, but that claim is a biased personal opinion of other wikipedians against astrotheology, like they are trying to state that astrotheology is WP:FRINGE and that makes the book WP:FRINGE. That claim highly contradicts the book Adaptation (published by the Academic Press) that also sources astrotheology in history. That claim would seem to support that Adaptation is also WP:FRINGE. That just makes this a bit WP:ODD. — Dzonatas 18:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dzonatas: your cited difs demonstrate a clear lack of understanding of the difference between normal editing and reverting, so I'll ignore your further accusations on this topic. Astrotheology & Shamanism is published by a publisher clearly specialising in WP:FRINGE material, whose authors (one of whom has come onto wikipedia to pump the book) have demonstrated no scholarly credentials in a relevant field. I have not challenged the reliability of Adaptation, the book uses Astrotheology only in the context of, and as part of, Natural theology -- a meaning bearing no close relationship to Astrotheology & Shamanism's far more expansive, New-Age revisionist, use of the term. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is clearly illogical to discredit as book as WP:FRINGE because the publisher specializes in controversial subjects. I'm not stupid to see that publisher seems to have questionable books if presented as scientific fact. In review of Derham's Astro-Theology, some of the subjects, like Copernicus, are also echoed in Irvin's book. Derham doesn't present it as a paradigm shift as Irvin did since the term paradigm shift came after the 1900s and Derham was way ahead of that. — Dzonatas 04:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dzonatas I suggest you ask the RS/N if the book is to be considered a reliable source for factual statements about science, theology or history more generally. Since others disagree with you why not seek neutral opinions. I'll agree not to comment there if you ask the question simply and without gross misrepresentation.PelleSmith (talk) 13:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Same previous vote to Keep) and Speedily Close: close as WP:POINT -- The article has been through several editions, found notability and no vote to merge, and has made the original commenter's votes null. Keeping this AfD open is a witchhunt for merits while the article continuously is hit with POV edits, which has reverted many attempts to expand the article. This issue really belongs in the NPOV forum. — Dzonatas 11:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge relevant sourced content about the archaic subset of natural theology into that entry.PelleSmith (talk) 13:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Newton's achievement as stated by the book Adaptation has lead to the distinction of astrotheology and physicotheology. Hrafn and PelleSmith want to merge based on a Fallacy of the undistributed middle (clearly explained on articles talk page). They have been unable to cite sources that specifically claim that "astrotheology is natural theology." Even Derham's work (author of Astro-Theology and Physico-theology) doesn't even mention "natural theology" in his books. Derham published his books in 1713-1715. Paley's Natural Theology was published in 1802. — Dzonatas 13:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is quite false. Please do come to the talk page. The sources unambiguously show that astrotheology was part of natural theology and as such it was eclipsed by physicotheology. The Fallacy of the undistributed middle is a red herring here since the issue is one of reliable sources.PelleSmith (talk) 13:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked many time for clearly cite the source which supports your claim. I have not seen a quotation from you to support it. I have only seen your personal opinion. — Dzonatas 13:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

False again. I have already quoted extensively on the talk page from Adaptation, one of the two reliable sources we have so far. Here are some relevant quotes, I've added some here to make it even more clear. We start with the first reference to astrotheology - see for yourselves (from pages 18-21): 1) "Newton's acheivement made necessary the first distinction between the theological reasoning based on astronomy and that based on biology. The distinction was between 'astrotheology' and 'physicotheology'." 2) "Two important scientists, the naturalist John Ray and the physicist chemist Robert Boyle, set the tone for post Newtonian natural theology. They and their followers began to marginalize astrotheology. Natural theology texts began to mention astronomy only in passing. Increased emphasis was put on organic design ..." 3) "Commentators on this era of natural theology recognize the shift from astrotheology to physicotheology." 4) "The biologizing of natural theology meshed nicely with the increasing British interest in natural history. No one had the impiety to fully abandon astrotheology. The heavens still 'proclaimed the glory of God' but the ceased to prove his existence" 5) "So astrotheology was scarcely named in time for it to be neglected." 6) "[William Paley's] 1833 Bridgewater Thesis can be seen as the last gasp of astrotheology."7) "The connection formerly asserted by natural theology between the specific discoveries of astronomy and the nature of the Creator had been cut." I don't see how any one reading this book can mistake the meaning here. Dzonatas knows this and that is why he is asking for text that explicitly says "astrotheology was a subset of natural theology." Clearly no such direct and emphatic statement is necessary. The meaning is quite clear. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 14:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What the issue amounts to is this. There are two uses of "astrotheology," 1) an academic one relating to an archaic theology which was part of natural theology and 2) a popular one with a meaning that is utilized in various new age capacities. There is no verifiable and reliable way to source a connection between the two since the only attempts to do so come from the popular non-academic literature of new age writers. The reliable sources we do have make it clear that astrotheology had a very short existence. This is something Dzonatas refuses to live with since his popular sources say otherwise. Fortunately Wikipedia is not a forum for various minority groups to use in order to create notability for their various beliefs. Unless someone is willing to make a case for the notability of the new age terminology the situation remains as many have already stated it.PelleSmith (talk) 14:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Derham is the only source that defines 'Astro-Theology' and 'Physico-Theology' in his time. Derham makes no mention of 'Natural Theology' (which is published almost 90 years after Derham's book writing). Derham, as a source, is being ignored by other editors in order to support more recently written text that use the terms generally. All the quotes about show distinction. Newton's achievements is cited as to make that distinction clear. The events related to Newton and Derham cannot be ignored in order to achieve npov. — Dzonatas 15:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that historians are as realiable as its gonna get in terms of the history of natural theology and astrotheology. I don't understand why we are to disregard a historical account instead as you suggest extrapolating original research based upon a primary source. Can you please familiarize yourself with the sourcing policies.PelleSmith (talk) 15:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since this AfD attempt is *way* past its WP:POINT, my response is on the article's talk page. — Dzonatas 19:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to astrology, perhaps as not much more than a sentence. A passing fad in theological circles, there is a natural theology that predates it, and which continues past it. Astrology would seem to be the closest fit ... although I could be wrong. Pastordavid (talk) 23:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Does anyone have access to this book, published by CUP in 2001. It has about 10 pages on the modern interpretations of astro-theology. Not sure if this is relevant, or would help. Merzul (talk) 00:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a real topic. It is a book by Derhem and something from a film. That's not a real topic. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since I'm merely starting with the resources available to add background to the article, that would be a bad assumption. Another editor moved the sections around to make it look only like its a book. It has been very difficult to expand this article when they continually blank content with their POV that all theology belongs under natural theology, which actually turns out to be an intelligent design debate on teleology. — Dzonatas 17:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What you are doing is garbling the article to the extent that very few seem to be able to put it into context, beyond the fact that it isn't saying much that is noteworthy and isn't covered elsewhere. Your characterisation of my comments, just like your characterisation of every other source you have cited, is egregiously erroneous. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this AfD debate may be influenced outside of the discussion of the astrotheology article and may explain the AfD attempt: evidence "Houston, we have a problem" — Dzonatas 19:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is unclear if there is a real topic here, or whether this term has been used in the past with a well-understood shared meaning. Per Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms we are not supposed to create new terms or allow ourselves to get on the bandwagon of new coinages before they have general use. The article appears to contain original research. I notice that a number of references are included that are here only because of the enthusiastic support of one particular editor. Since these are difficult historical matters, it would be good to have some kind of consensus beyond the views of one editor that these references are germane and prove what he says they prove. EdJohnston (talk) 19:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Dzonatas. Durova^Charge! 04:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Final word This is the last thing I have to say on this topic: this is obviously going to be deleted and there is no argument that can stop that. Dzonatas, I recommend for your own sake that you be less combative and take whatever usable information is on this page and incorporate it into astrology. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE TO CLOSING ADMIN - If the decision here is to delete can we please make sure that whatever is done to the page does not damage our ability to use both the history of Astrotheology and its talk page to present evidence in the arbitration request (and perhaps case) that Durova mentions above. Thanks. Withdraw note since community sanctions have been levied instead against this user.PelleSmith (talk) 15:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dzonatas has been blocked indefinitely for disrutpion. Durova^Charge! 16:54, 6 June 2008 (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.