| Revision as of 16:16, 9 June 2006 editMarskell (talk | contribs)22,422 editsm →[]← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:25, 9 June 2006 edit undoJzG (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers155,070 edits →[]: DeleteNext edit → | ||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
| *'''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) | |||
Revision as of 16:25, 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)