Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derivative house

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 redirect to House (astrology). There is near unanimity that a standalone article is inappropriate. The argument to merge is undercut by concerns with the content that currently exists. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:58, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative house (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Entirely unsourced article. No indication of notability. Salimfadhley (talk) 11:28, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Louis, Anthony (1998). Horary Astrology Plain & Simple, Fast & Accurate Answers to Real World Questions. Llewellyn Publications. pp. 41–42. ISBN 9781567184013.
  2. ^ Bills, Rex E. (1974). The Rulership Book. American Federation of Astrologers. p. xi. ISBN 9780866904315.
  3. ^ Rushman, Carol (2002). The Art of Predictive Astrology, Forecasting Your Life Events. Llewellyn Publications. p. 13. ISBN 9780738701646.
  4. ^ Noah, William (2005). Astrology Of America: The Purpose-driven Meaning Of America's Astrological Chart. iUniverse. pp. 218–224. ISBN 9780595339044.
  5. ^ Falconer, Kim (2005). Astrology and Aptitude, How to Become What You Were Meant to Be. American Federation of Astrologers. p. 176. ISBN 9780866905367.

SailingInABathTub (talk) 20:16, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can't strike it, but I acknowledge that ref #4 is self-published and therefore unreliable. SailingInABathTub (talk) 21:02, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with AleatoryPonderings that these sources, as having a vested interest in astrology as a belief system, are not independent and therefore cannot satisfy WP:GNG. A longer back-and-forth about this here. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ) 21:42, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:Fringe makes a clear distinction between "notability" and "acceptance". Statements about the the _truth_ or science of astrology can not be sourced to be credulous astrologers, but the policy makes it clear that such sources are not disqualified from being reliable sources for determining the notability of the belief, and describing the details of the belief. ApLundell (talk) 20:46, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This misrepresents WP:NFRINGE. That guideline does in no way imply that our general notability guidelines, which ask for significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, would not apply for fringe. On the contrary, it explicitly states that the notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents. What the 'Notability versus acceptance' section in WP:NFRINGE actually says is that the fact that a theory is not accepted should not itself be a reason to declare it non-notable. That's of course not to be reversed into the claim that all not-accepted theories are notable, just because they are mentioned in non-independent, unreliable sources. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ) 21:42, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To merge....or redirect....or delete, that is the question.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 04:37, 26 November 2021 (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.