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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:54, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article would need to be completely re-written to be encyclopedic but the sources don't exist. It uncritically reports pseudoscience as mainstream with sourcing in the article only to fringe publications and fringe "journals". Whilst many pseudoscience topics are indeed notable, this article gives no indication of notability and there appears to be no significant coverage in reliable sources to provide any mainstream perspective. psychological astrology already exists and can cover much of the same topic anyway. In particular on the notability, note that the article is claiming a form of psychology and thus Wikipedia:FRINGE#Peer_reviewed_sources is relevant: One important barometer for determining the notability and level of acceptance of fringe ideas related to science, history or other academic pursuits is the presence or absence of peer reviewed research on the subject. There is no such peer reviewed coverage except in fringe journals which are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:09, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: No evidence of notability based on independent reliable sources. No evidence that the subject has been discusssed at all in independent reliable sources. Google search, Google Scholar and Google Books turned up nothing promising. Fringe topic with only one main proponent, sourced mainly with his own psuedoscientific/psuedoacademic writings and those of sympathetic fringe supporters. Appears to be a content fork of the article on the main proponent's book, Cosmos and Psyche and of Psychological astrology. Does not provide any information about mainstream views about the topic giving all weight to the psudocientific fringe view. Essentially a promotional article written from a very strong fringe POV. Repair is impossible because adequate reliable sources seem not to exist, and because notability cannot be established. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:34, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Dominus Vobisdu and the nominator have expressed it very well; I'll merely say WP:FRINGE. Ubelowme (talk) 20:00, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Pure original research. Also consider the fact that the author of this article tried to separate archetypal cosmology which seems redundant. I'd argue for that article to be deleted as well. At the very least, the two articles ought to be merged if it's determined that such a subject actually exists. 24.215.188.24 (talk) 03:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge. One article on Tarnas, not necessarily individual articles on his books. Nothing in this or Archetypal cosmology indicates the need for distinct articles. Psychological astrology should probably remain, because Campion believes it to be a movement encompassing a number of writers. Itsmejudith (talk) 06:46, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable, not sourced properly.--DThomsen8 (talk) 10:51, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. No discussion of this deletion is necessary. According to the way that WP:FRINGE has been interpreted in regards to astrology, there is no possibility for this article to have non-fringe notability. If this topic were covered by a reliable source, then that reliable source is by definition a fringe source. If the enforcers of WP:FRINGE wish to remove any content, then there is simply no policy argument to limit their desire. They may remove any content that they wish; no argument is needed other than that they wish to remove it. The enforcers of WP:FRINGE have decided that the readers of Wikipedia should not be exposed to certain topics; make it so. — goethean ॐ 14:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not sure I agree with Goethean's argument. A fringe field could have been covered in a non-fringe source (critically or non-critically) as just that, a fringe topic. But delete regardless. Famous_dog 11:34, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - Notability not established. I would also go further and say that I completely disagree with Goethean's argument. It would certainly be possible for the subject to be referenced in some sort of encyclopedia of astrology, or paranormal, or any number of similar subjects. I am aware of a rather large number of such encyclopediac sources, somewhere in the several hundreds. User:John Carter/Religion reference contains only the very beginnings of such a list, as a lot more are yet to be added. Were this topic to be discussed at any real length in even a few of them, that would virtually certainly establish notability. I regret that this one article cannot be demonstrated to do so, or to meet the existing guidelines for notability. As I know from previous experience, there are a lot of non-notable web churches and other groups which don't meet notability standards as well, and their proponents have tended to make statements similar to those Goethean makes above. The fact that these subjects cannot be shown to meet notability guidelines is, however, not our problem. John Carter (talk) 16:58, 18 June 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.