Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of asteroids 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 no consensus. Sandstein 10:59, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of asteroids in astrology[edit]

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

Fringe within the fringe. Even "mainstream" astrologers ignore them: "Still though, they are often ignored within mainstream systems of astrology, especially in more traditional astrology systems like Vedic astrology or Hellenistic astrology. Their use has become significant to a few Western astrologers yet still only a minority of astrologers use the asteroids in chart interpretation." Very minor part of astrology, and does not meet Wikipedia:FRINGE#Notability, no sources "independent of their promulgators and popularizers" giving decent coverage. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:21, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:22, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete IRWolfie has analyzed things well. Fails our notability guideline for fringe topics, and the article relies only on unreliable fringe sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:42, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Planets_in_astrology#Other_solar_system_bodies, where asteroids are mentioned. Ansh6 6 6 03:23, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Article can be merged with other articles of astrology or with the page suggested by Ansh. SmackoVector (talk) 11:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why merge unsourced/unreliably sourced content? IRWolfie- (talk) 13:58, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 03:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - with Planets_in_astrology#Other_solar_system_bodies and with redirect - very informative additional detail on astrology systems not already in article - please, improve sourcing now, first, if possible Tammytoons (talk) 20:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)Tammytoons[reply]

"please, improve sourcing now, " That's the issue, there is no independent sourcing, IRWolfie- (talk) 14:27, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Books have been written solely about this topic:
- George, Demetra; Bloch, Douglas (2003). Asteroid Goddesses: The Mythology, Psychology, and Astrology of the Re-Emerging Feminine. Red Wheel, Reiser. ISBN 0892545623.
- Donath, Emma Belle (1977). Asteroids in Synastry. American Federation of Astrologers. ISBN 0866900829.
- Donath, Emma Belle (1979). Asteroids in the Birth Chart. American Federation of Astrologers. ISBN 0866900810.
- Lang-Wescott, Martha (1991). Mechanics of the Future: Asteroids. Treehouse Mountain. ISBN 0961985216.
- As well, general astrology books have included information about asteroids. One such book is Computers and Astrology: A Universal User's Guide and Reference (ISBN 0962464813) which lists on page 71 the asteroids which are usually included in a computerized horoscope: Ceres, Pallas, Juno and Vesta. It then lists "lesser" asteroids which may be of interest to astrology. James R. Lewis (scholar) spends several pages on asteroids in his Astrology Encyclopedia (ISBN 0810389002). He says that there are four main asteroids which are used by some astrologers: Ceres, Pallas, Juno and Vesta. He writes: "Clearly, the next step in establishing the study of asteroids as a widely accepted branch of astrology will be the systematic exploration of the larger or the earlier asteroids, rather than the current piecemeal study of asteroids with idiosyncratic appeal." Regardless of whether I think this topic is worthy, the topic has obviously been made the subject of lists and books, so this list article should be kept. Binksternet (talk) 19:16, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All of these are fringe sources. No sources independent of the promulgators and promoters per Wikipedia:FRINGE#Notability and WP:PROFRINGE ("The notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents."). You haven't shown notability in the world at large at all, but are instead relying on astrological texts which are noted in reliable sources for their inherent irrationality and false claims, and this is undue promotion of a fringe aspect of a fringe theory (double fringe). The reason we have the fringe guidelines is to help deal with this unwarranted promotion by fringe advocates. And just to say in case there was any uncertainty, James R. Lewis is an academic of new age religions, but he is also a long time professional astrologer separate from that. His work on new age religions does not give him reliability with astrology. In the book he plainly calls astrology a science and says "astrology is labeled irrational because it has not been accepted into the mainstream of academic science", and "science creates more problems than it solves", blames the rejection of astrology on sun-sign astrology, attacks science and secularists several times etc etc. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:15, 28 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.