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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:18, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uranian astrology[edit]

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

In-universe sourcing only, couldn't find independent significant coverage required per WP:FRINGE "A Wikipedia article about a fringe view (or organization) should not make it appear more notable than it is. Claims must be based upon independent reliable sources" and Wikipedia:FRINGE#Independent_sources.

Wikipedia:FRINGE#Reliable sources: "A Fringe subject (a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory) is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, in at least one major publication that is independent of their promulgators and popularizers. References that debunk or disparage the fringe view can also be adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents. References that are employed because of the notability of a related subject—such as the creator of a theory, and not the theory itself—should be given far less weight when deciding on notability."

In essence, this article can't put the topic into perspective with respect to the mainstream because the sources don't seem to exist, and so neutrality can never be satisfied. There is no content suitable for merging since weight is only given in articles covered by WP:FRINGE to what is discussed in independent secondary sources (the article is mostly WP:OR anyway). IRWolfie- (talk) 16:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:30, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a fringe theory that hasn't been covered in reliable independent sources. Might be worth mentioning at another article about astrology if some small amounts of reliable coverage can be found. Vcessayist (talk) 02:04, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Multiple Google searches turned up nothing even faintly resembling significant and substantial coverage in multiple reliable independent sources, and the sources used do not establish any notability outside of the fringe community. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:12, 10 October 2012 (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.