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 SPEEDY KEEP as SK1 and a WP:POINT violation. Dougweller (talk) 14:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Babylonian astrology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

This page is being nominated for deletion for -

• Being created to avoid known controversial debate (NPOV content fork) on the Astrology page where it has been asserted that no change can be made without considering all sub-pages (see Talk:Astrology#Sub-pages_to_avoid_disputes.3F).
• Using a Wikipedia article as a sandbox.
• Violating Wikipedia guidelines on verifiability.

Peter S Strempel | Talk 23:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The process for page deletion nomination Template:AfD_in_3_steps does not work for me. I cannot create a valid entry at the AfD watchlist by adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Babylonian astrology and, in the edit summary, Adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Babylonian astrology. Peter S Strempel | Talk 23:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have completed this nomination page for you. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - this editor seems to have lost his senses. I can only imagine it is because his proposal for a suggested rewrite of one passage in another article in the main Astrology page failed to find favour and it was pointed out to him that sections within the main astrology page should summarise the daughter pages it links to. No dispute, no controversial debate, only a reaffirmation that editors working there were aware of the need to bring the pages the main article linked to up to standard too.

Within the last hour he has proposed three major astrological articles for deletion:

Babylonian astrology

Hellenistic astrology

Horoscopic astrology

...and declared on the main History of astrology talk page

I announce my intention to delete all unreferenced content from this page within seven days. This is in line with Wikipedia principles about verifiable content. Wikipedia pages are not sandboxes for personal opinions, views or discussions. Please add necessary citations for every assertion made.

He knows there is a committed group of editors working in an organised manner to review all of this content systematically, and is being wholly unreasonable to target such major content pages simultaneously, knowing that they are closely related in content and likely to involve the interest of the same group of editors who cannot be everywhere at one time. What are his motives in trying to destroy so much astrological content like this so suddenly, when these are valuable pages which require attention not deletion? I suggest the page is tagged with the issue that concerns him, and that he adds 'citation requests' for any quote or comment he feels could be challenged and is therefore in need of citation. Zac Δ talk 00:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Article definitely needs improvement. But being the oldest known form or astrology, and having played an important role in the history of Iraq/Middle East it may deserve its own article on basis of notability. If not kept it can be merged into History of astrology. MakeSense64 (talk) 06:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - There is no good reason to delete this article. It is not really in bad shape. If the article requires more sources then they should be added. You don't just delete an article if it doesn't have enough citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris Brennan (talk • contribs) 07:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (speedy keep if there is such a thing) The subject is clearly notable. If there is a problem with the article, improve it. On the face of it this is a frivolous AFD nomination. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 07:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep per SK1 – the nominator may have listed some reasons for deletion but literally none of them apply. ╟─TreasuryTag►First Secretary of State─╢ 11:33, 22 July 2011 (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.