| Revision as of 17:44, 9 June 2006 editAquirata (talk | contribs)1,411 edits →[]: keep← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:12, 9 June 2006 edit undoAquirata (talk | contribs)1,411 edits →[]: additional argumentsNext edit → | ||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
| *'''Delete'''. Only the Mars effect is of any notability in this page and it has its own article. The rest is built upon papers from unreliable journals. ] 16:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC) | *'''Delete'''. Only the Mars effect is of any notability in this page and it has its own article. The rest is built upon papers from unreliable journals. ] 16:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| * '''Delete''' looks a lot like a POV fork. Cited sources appear unreliable, and in any case this is more than adequately covered at ]. I see no evidence that the complexity of the argumewnt warrants a separate article, and past history indicates that this is just a venu for ]. ] 16:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC) | * '''Delete''' looks a lot like a POV fork. Cited sources appear unreliable, and in any case this is more than adequately covered at ]. I see no evidence that the complexity of the argumewnt warrants a separate article, and past history indicates that this is just a venu for ]. ] 16:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep'''. The history of the ] page and this one indicate that there was a need to create a separate article exactly because of the issues being argued. The Astrology page was getting too big, hence the creation in April 2005. The title is already implicitly questioning the objective validity of astrology, so if it's a POV-fork, it can only be a ''scientific'' POV-fork, which is not what the described concern is. The main Astrology article cannot be expanded to give sufficient coverage to this topic: the objective validity article is already too long in itself. In fact the possibility of creating an ''astrological research'' page has just surfaced due to the amount of material still not included and the size of the article. The ] article doesn't deal with the objective validity of astrology. I agree that the page is a "gawdawful mess which is constantly being reverted over" -- mostly by Marskell and Jefffire. ] |
*'''Keep'''. The history of the ] page and this one indicate that there was a need to create a separate article exactly because of the issues being argued. The Astrology page was getting too big, hence the creation in April 2005. The title is already implicitly questioning the objective validity of astrology, so if it's a POV-fork, it can only be a ''scientific'' POV-fork, which is not what the described issue is. The "fundamental concern" referred to in the opening is a concern only of those editors who oppose the presentation of arguments for the objective validity of astrology. The main Astrology article cannot be expanded to give sufficient coverage to this topic: the objective validity article is already too long in itself. In fact the possibility of creating an ''astrological research'' page has just surfaced due to the amount of material still not included and the size of the article. The ] article doesn't deal with the objective validity of astrology. To think that the complexity of the argument doesn't warrant a separate page is to ignore numerous researchers spending lifetimes on attempting to determine astrology's objective validity, and then leagues of other researchers arguing about the results for decades. I agree that the page is a "gawdawful mess which is constantly being reverted over" -- mostly by Marskell and Jefffire, without discussion. Let me also point out that this AfD was also brought about without input from the other editors. ] 18:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 18:12, 9 June 2006
Objective validity of astrology
Fundamental concern is that this is a POV-fork used as a platform to present questionable, obscure astrological research that would not pass WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV on a more frequented page. The one entry here that has received sufficient attention to warrant Wiki-coverage is the Mars effect, which has its own page. The main astrology article has a section which can be expanded somewhat to include any other critical points. We have an astrology and astronomy to boot, which we can use if we really need comparative analysis. The page is also a gawdawful mess which is constantly being reverted over. Delete. Marskell 16:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Only the Mars effect is of any notability in this page and it has its own article. The rest is built upon papers from unreliable journals. Jefffire 16:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete looks a lot like a POV fork. Cited sources appear unreliable, and in any case this is more than adequately covered at Astrology#The_objective_validity_of_astrology. I see no evidence that the complexity of the argumewnt warrants a separate article, and past history indicates that this is just a venu for special pleading. Just zis Guy you know? 16:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. The history of the Astrology page and this one indicate that there was a need to create a separate article exactly because of the issues being argued. The Astrology page was getting too big, hence the creation in April 2005. The title is already implicitly questioning the objective validity of astrology, so if it's a POV-fork, it can only be a scientific POV-fork, which is not what the described issue is. The "fundamental concern" referred to in the opening is a concern only of those editors who oppose the presentation of arguments for the objective validity of astrology. The main Astrology article cannot be expanded to give sufficient coverage to this topic: the objective validity article is already too long in itself. In fact the possibility of creating an astrological research page has just surfaced due to the amount of material still not included and the size of the article. The Astrology and astronomy article doesn't deal with the objective validity of astrology. To think that the complexity of the argument doesn't warrant a separate page is to ignore numerous researchers spending lifetimes on attempting to determine astrology's objective validity, and then leagues of other researchers arguing about the results for decades. I agree that the page is a "gawdawful mess which is constantly being reverted over" -- mostly by Marskell and Jefffire, without discussion. Let me also point out that this AfD was also brought about without input from the other editors. Aquirata 18:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)