Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centaurs in astrology

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. Secret ^account 23:40, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Centaurs in astrology[edit]

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

A minor part of astrology, and not notable to the world at large. No mainstream sources "independent of their promulgators and popularizers" discusses this subset of astrology, or has drawn attention to it (Wikipedia:FRINGE#Notability/WP:GNG). There are at least 631 astrology articles, many are notable, but this one is not. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Your rationale for deletion is not cogent. We require significant coverage in reliable sources for notability, not significant coverage in non-specialist sources. One could plausibly claim that since astrology is a fairly obvious pseudoscience, all astrology sources are unreliable. This is not how WP:RS works. Astrology-specialized sources can be reliable to accurately recount what astrologers believe to be true. We would hardly start deleting articles on obscure medical topics due to significant coverage only being found in the medical literature. Whether science, pseudoscience, or something else entirely, all articles stand or fall by the same notability standards. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest reading our guidelines I linked to, also note WP:GNG: "Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large". Comparing astrology to obscure medical topics is invalid. Medical science is in the mainstream, astrology is within the fringes. Have a read of Wikipedia:FRINGE#Notability. A topic discussed by fringe practitioners is not necessarily notable to the mainstream just because the fringe proponents discuss it. The astrology sources are not reliable for 1. history. 2. science 3. statements about other astrologers or about astrology except as opinion (astrologers disagree with most aspects with each other, just ask a few astrologers if astrology is religion or science and let me know how you get along). On wikipedia we have issues with Undue promotion of fringe theories, and we do not mention aspects of fringe theories which have not received "attention by the world at large". There are many notable astrology articles, and they are notable because they have received said attention. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Astrology is not altogether unpopular with the general public. It is "fringe" in the sense of failing to satisfy fundamental criteria for a science and the refusal of its practitioners to properly utilize scientific methods, not due to a lack of adherents. So there really is an issue as to how Wikipedia should best cover popular pseudosciences, as well as what distinguishes a religion from a pseudoscience. Personally, I would draw the line by whether the belief system respects the principle of non-overlapping magisteria: if it does, it's a religion; if it doesn't, it's a pseudoscience. But that might reflect an Abrahamic bias, of course. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:21, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the point: nobody is saying that astrology in itself is fringe. However, what this article is about is a fringe part of astrology - from what I can tell, one that is debated and little-accepted or agreed upon within the astrological community. Ansh6 6 6 01:35, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fringe theories are not necessarily fringe with respect to the general population, what makes them fringe is with respect to academia. Of course virtually no one on the street knows much of anything about astrology beyond their star sign, but we digress. Astrology receives much coverage in reliable sources, centaurs in astrology just doesn't. But why aren't astrology sources viewed as reliable you might ask? Because they routinely overstate things to the benefit of their view and rely on fallacious logic. While there is little conformity in astrology; I've seen astrologers insist that astrology be described as X in the main article, then other astrologers arrive later saying that Wikipedia is doing a hatchet job by calling astrology X. Astrologers working on a specific topic within astrology will claim its the most important topic within astrology, etc etc. The astrological discourse is also inherently irrational and based on poor scientific reasoning, see Astrology_and_science#Irrationality for more. Astrologers also have a history of aggrandising their fringe views on wikipedia. This attempt by pseudoscience believers to use wikipedia as a platform to promote their views is directly why the fringe guidelines where formed in the first place. An academic account of astrology is reliable, an account of astrology written by an astrologer, no. What you appear to be implicitly assuming is that the astrological literature is like the scientific literature but simply looking at things from a different perspective. I challenge you to have a peek at some of their material. As an aside, I know several avowed Christians that disagree very angrily with the concept of NOMA and view theology as a science, so things aren't that clear there either, but that is a separate issue. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:40, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FRINGE#Notability. Most of the references in the article do not discuss the specific topic of "Centaurs in astrology", but rather discuss the objects called Centaurs in mainstream astronomy. There is no evidence that any reliable source has devoted significant coverage to this specific topic other than fringe pseudoscience advocates. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:48, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - fails WP:FRINGE#Notability. Majority of them don't even have a real section, in any case, and the article mainly talks about the objects themselves and not astrology. The few sources that are given and that work aren't IMO reliable. Possibly redirect, but not sure where. Ansh6 6 6 18:35, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you wanted a redirect Planets in astrology would be a likely target, the article can be deleted and redirected. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:06, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not actually sure a redirect would be useful here, after thinking about it. Centaurs are I guess technically planets, but Planets_in_astrology#Other_solar_system_bodies could be better - Chiron is mentioned there. Ansh6 6 6 23:14, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Planets_in_astrology#Other_solar_system_bodies. The present article is very poor and the content is mainly astronomical rather than astrological. Rather than worry about Fringe Promotion, Wikipedia currently seems to have a issues of Fringe Demotion. Otherwise, editors who know and care about astrology would have been busy developing this article. In a recent AfD, the astrologer, Zane Stein linked to a list of 40 independent book titles: http://zanestein.com/bio.htm that referred to his work on Chiron. Even if some were self-published by independent authors, the astrological study of this minor planet evidently has some notability, but is not as yet notable enough for a dedicated article. Kooky2 (talk) 23:01, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, one thing about that is that Chiron is the only one of these Centaurs that so far has been analyzed in any depth by the astrological community. They haven't been discussed as a set or individually apart from the one. Ansh6 6 6 23:10, 13 August 2013 (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.