Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reception (astrology)

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 of the debate was keep. Flowerparty☀ 14:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reception (astrology)

Frankly, this article seems nonsensical to me. However, I think that there may be wikipedians who want this kept (at least one, as it was written, with some effort expended), so rather than speedy nom, I ask you, my fellow wikipedians, to accept (or otherwise) this article. My suggestion - Delete. With thanks, Colonel Tom 15:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you found the article I wrote on reception to be nonsense, except that (reading it over) it is rather technical, and I imagine it might seem obscure. If the problem is that it's written in a way that someone with little background in astrology might understand, fair enough. I'll try to make it more accessible. But it's not as if it's some wiggy idea that I dreamt up. The concept has been around for two millennia, and it's always been called "reception." I'm assuming there is no bias against astrology involved in flagging it. NaySay 15:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment It's totally unreferenced at present. If convincing citations showing this is a well-known concept within the field can be added that would be an argument for keeping the article Dlyons493 Talk 15:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. All astrological articles seem nonsensical to me, but it is not patent nonsense. The concept appears to be in use by astrologers.[1][2] --Lambiam^Talk 17:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Lambiam. Danny Lilithborne 21:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• I would prefer to merge this somewhere, but I don't know exactly where. --Metropolitan90 03:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Astrology. B.Wind 16:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

It is unfortunately inappropriate to merge this with strology because that article is far too long as it is and has need to reference many smaller articles for explanation of more detailed points. The article on Mutual reception would seem more appropriate, but unfortunately mutual reception is a category of reception. However, the term is much more commonly used in twenty-first century astrology than "reception." What I will do is to add refs to the article if that seems feasible and make it more accessible. NaySay 16:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per NaySay and Lambiam. - CNichols 23:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep if references can be provided; delete otherwise. I see no other problems with the article, other than the offchance that somebody just pulled this out of their ass. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 23:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

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.