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 lack of reliable independent sources about the topic is the deciding factor. Fram (talk) 09:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Archetypal cosmology

Archetypal cosmology (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)

This appears to overlap with the AfD here Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Archetypal_astrology. I would have applied CSD but there is no relevant criteria. I don't see the concept meeting WP:GNG. It appears to be a fringe viewpoint only amongst a small group with some revisionism to make it look like a more ancient tradition as it is being used to describe the ideas of Shakespeare, Kepler and Geothe who were all dead before Jung was born so I don't see how it could draw on Jungian ideas. This appears to conflate two distinct topics which use the same terminology. It also violates WP:FRINGE throughout by not reporting the mainstream perspective and giving an uncritical description of astrology viewpoints and techniques and would require a rewrite from scratch, it is unlikely that such mainstream sources exists though due to the obscure non-notable nature of the topic though. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:34, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The mentions of Shakespeare, Kepler, et al. at the end of the article are based on sources that have used the phrase "archetypal cosmology" in describing certain parts of their work, but it doesn't refer to the "archetypal cosmology" described in the article. To the extent that the article has a well-defined topic, it's exactly the same thing as Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Archetypal_astrology, which has already been deleted. --Amble (talk) 17:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The recent addition of new sources that don't have anything to do with the topic of the article confirms my suspicion that the article doesn't really know what it's supposed to be about. If it's just about any example of the words "archetype" and "cosmology" occurring near each other, then it can safely be deleted. If it's about Tarnas's ideas, then (if anything) it should be recreated at archetypal astrology. Either way, I can't see that this article has a coherent topic that can be distinguished from the topic of the former archetypal astrology article. --Amble (talk) 13:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rubbish. The topic of the article is a cosmology which is constituted by archetypes. Tarnas believes in this doctrine, as does Nietzsche, Kepler, and other figures. Reliable sources have been produced which backs up these claims. That opponents of this content dismiss these sources is simply par for the course. — goethean ॐ 14:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, the topic is any example of the words "archetype" and "cosmology" occurring near each other (which is not a cohesive topic at all). The archetypes used by Kepler, for example, have no connection to Tarnas et al. There is no "this doctrine" that both Tarnas and Kepler believe in. --Amble (talk) 16:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is not at all clear that that statement is correct (since Kepler, like Tarnas, seems to have believed in astrology), and it is also not clear that it would matter, even if it were correct. The materialism of, say, Lucretius and the materialism of Richard Dawkins are undoubtedly very different things, but they can both be discussed at materialism. Obviously Tarnas, living in the 21st century, does not believe the same exact thing as Kepler. But practically any article on a philosophical theory will have a long and varied history involving different conceptions. But nobody argues that the dualism article should be deleted because Descartes' dualism is not like Plato's. Dualism is a theory that divides something into two parts. Archetypal cosmology is a cosmology which conceives of the world as consisting of archetypes. — goethean ॐ 19:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is inconsistent with the text in the article. For example, on Shakespeare it looks like someone just googled the word and added what came up: [1] the snippet doesn't show a context of the usage that applies here, in fact the snippet from google books shows that the writer is describing the world that Shakespeare has created for his fictional work! Furthermore, jung, jungian, and astrology, and astrological are not mentioned in the book from the search, which is odd considering the description of what the topic is, is apparently: "It uses astrological techniques to study the significance of planetary cycles and alignments, and draws on fields such as Jungian depth psychology, Greek philosophy, and mythology to formulate a unique cosmology or world view which recognizes that existence of archetypal principles and their significance for human experience."
Also, if there is two definitions of what Archetypal cosmology is, with one being a modern fringe term and the other being an older more generic term. Surely then the modern fringe usage is completely undue for this article per Wikipedia:FRINGE#Unwarranted_promotion_of_fringe_theories. The fringe term has been given more due weight than the other distinct usage of the term! Since, this is the majority of the article the answer is still deletion, bearing in mind the other usage hasn't been shown to be notable (or existent) either. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since you are changing the subject. I'll presume that you concede the point about Kepler. — goethean ॐ 23:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From reading it I see no connection of Kepler to the topic either and it does not meet the above explanation of the concept which is in the article. It's not even clear from the source on Kepler what meaning of archetypal is being used (or is it like the Shakespeare case as well, googling a word in google books and picking any sources that return a match?). It seems that the Kepler usage more likely refers to the style of usage as shakespeare and is distinct from Tarnas, and we are just combining mentions of Archetypal and Cosmology by OR to create a distinct topic: look at how often the word archetypal is used and how little corresponds to "archetypal cosmology": [2]. Take your pick, what is Archetypal Cosmology, a modern fringe theory by Tarnas et al based on astrological and jungian ideas or a different older belief, or just a novel combination of words? Note also, the differing definitions of Archetype includes Shakespeare as an example for use of the word unconnected to jungian ideas: [3]: "William Shakespeare is responsible for popularizing several archetypal characters"! IRWolfie- (talk) 09:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kepler's archetypes are based on Plato, while Tarnas' are neo-Jungian (and Jung's archetypes are, of course, in turn influenced by Plato). So what? It doesn't mean that they are unrelated, or that I am making shit up. To insist that this article be about one historical period and not another flies in the face of accepted Wikipedia precedent and widespread practice. Again, please visit the pages on dualism, monism, or materialism, and note the extremely wide variety of usage — sitting there in the same article, like cats sleeping with dogs!. Go protest on their respective talk pages that Lucretius and Democritus have absolutely nothing in common with Richard Dawkins or Daniel Dennett, (Or, better, that the Yin and Yang has nothing to do with Descartes) and that therefore, one or the other must be removed from the article. I have a feeling that your correspondents will find your argument just as bankrupt as I do. As User:AxelHarvey perceptively noted below, your perhaps over-enthusiastic usage of WP:FRINGE to remove content from Wikipedia is not really compatible with articles on intellectual history, which are free to describe any number of historical theories, views and perspectives. — goethean ॐ 17:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of materialism or dualism, we have outside sources to show that such a topic exists and that various thinkers in different eras are associated with it. In the case of archetypal cosmology, we have a Google search for two terms occurring near each other, resulting in a grab bag of ideas and people that have no clear relationship to each other. That's the difference. It gives the strong impression of trying to make archetypal cosmology appear more impressive, notable, and respectable by shoehorning in a few extra famous people on very flimsy grounds. --Amble (talk) 08:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We don't purge "mumbo jumbo". We remove non-notable and unfixable articles per guidelines and policy. In fact, removing notable articles on pseudoscience would be actively against the encyclopedic mission of wikipedia. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:03, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, User:Timingthegroove has perceived the matter accurately. Only a fool would think that it is an accident that users interested in enforcing a strict reductionistic ideology on Wikipedia gang up to vote articles such as this one out of existence. — goethean ॐ 01:45, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AGF exists for a reason. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The problem is not that the topic is fringe, but that it lacks notability outside of a minuscule fringe group and is sourced almost entirely with unreliable in-universe fringe sources with no reputation for fact checking or editorial responsibility, or of any credibility or standing whatsoever in the real-world scholarly community.
The main source used is not an independent source, but a self-promotional brochure published by the originator and chief proponent of the subject of the article, Richard Tarnas, who is listed as the "senior editorial advisor". According to the "journal's" own website, it's mission is:
"Archai is dedicated to furthering the research orientation and methodology established by Richard Tarnas in Cosmos and Psyche: Intimations of a New World View (New York: Viking, 2006)." [[4]].
This self-promotional material is deceptively disguised as a "scholarly journal". I found no evidence that any sort of scholarly editorial or peer-review takes place, or that the "journal" has ever been cited by real-world scholars.
The only time reliable sources are used is in the last sentence. Or rather, they are egregiously misused to imply that the appearence of the words "archetypal" and "cosmology" (or something similar) in the source has something to do with the topic of the rest of the article in order to give the subject of the article an air of "legitimacy", in violation of WP:NPOV and WP:COATRACK.
I could find no evidence at all of notability based on reliable secondary sources. My own rather extensive Google, Google Scholar and Google Books search turned up nothing whatsoever in the way of reliable sources that can be used to establish notability. This is strong evidence that the real-world scholarly community has never considered the topic of the article worthy of serious discussion, and that the topic is not notable outside of a tiny mutual adoration society of fringe proponents. Limited notability with a small fringe group of adoring admirers cannot be equated with notability in real-world scholarly discourse.
The article contains nothing of encyclopedic interest to a readership like that of WP because it contains no information provided by recognized experts in independent reliable sources.
Perusing the votes below reveals that the sourcing and notability problems have not been seriously addressed, except with variations of WP:CENSORSHIP, WP:LOTSOFSOURCES, WP:GOOGLEHITS, WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING, WP:ITSNOTABLE and, sadly, plenty of WP:ADHOM and WP:THEYDONTLIKEIT. Cries of "censorship" and "bias" are absurd because, as I said, articles on fringe topics are certainly welcome here on WP, provided they are reliably sourced. This one, though, appears to be completely unsourceable. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC) Updated Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:28, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Contains nothing of encyclopedic interest to a readership like that of WP.
This gets to the nub of the issue, which is: let us prevent readers from seeing things which contradict our ideology. Each point of your argument depends on your personal definitions of "fringe", "reliable", "scholarly", etc. Plenty of sources exist, as everyone involved in this conversation knows. So we disqualify those sources on ideological grounds. And then we opine about what Wikipedia readers should be allowed to see. This is an ideological exercise. — goethean ॐ 00:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, significant coverage in reliable sources has not been shown. No critical reception is available either because of the non-notablity of the article, WP:FRINGE can never be met by this article and nor can WP:GNG. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Whether the article concerns a "fringe topic" or is even "absolutely fringe" is irrelevant and not a legitimate reason to "get rid of articles". WP does not have a censorship policy against fringe subjects; it only has policies that need to be adhered to in these topics, such as not making a fringe theory appear more mainstream or notable than it is. I have given the article some light editing to remove these concerns. With regard to notability, archetypal astrology has a very significant number of adherents and the influence of Tarnass is becoming increasingly important to astrologers. It would be easy to locate many reference to the concept within astrological literature and I've added a couple of refs to independent works which discuss the ideas outside of the astrological perspective. I've also attached the article to the Wiki Astrology Project. It's a great shame that no notice was given to the astrology project members about the proposal to delete the archetypal astrology page. There is a need to link to pages like this from various other pages belonging to that project, in order to give a resource for fuller explanation where these terms appear. Now that the archetypal astrology page has gone, the importance of this page to the astrology project has risen - these sorts of explanations are important. I see no remaining problems on this page, and no reason now not to close this discussion speedily, with a 'keep'. -- Zac Δ talk! 11:28, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the sources you added? You added two sources. The sources you added don't use the word Archetypal astrology/cosmology and don't seem to be about the concept. One Anthony Freeman, 'A Daniel Come to Judgement? Dennett and the Revisioning of Transpersonal Theory', Journal of Consiousness Studies, 13, No. 3, 2006, pp.95–109. refers to Dan Dennett as: Dennett’s popular image is of an archetypal reductionist, prominent member of CSICOP (the highly sceptical Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal), and card-carrying atheist." That is the only usage of the word Archetypal in that article from what I can see. The other "J.N. Ferrer, Revisioning Transpersonal Theory p.115 (New York: SUNYPress, 2002)" does not mention astrology and appears to use archetypal in a variety of uses, and at one stage referring appears to refer to Archetypal psychology. This usage has no direct connection to the topic. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:26, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What kind of superficial and flawed assessment is this? You remove two references to offline journals 45 minutes after they were entered into the article (on a Sunday, mind) claiming they don't use three particular words. Perhaps you meant that the titles didn't include those words? Is that how you usually decide which references to prune off articles covering topics which you don't like? I have reverted your removal of references added to the article during AfD. It is outrageous the way you unilaterally go and remove evidence that all participants of this discussion should be allowed access to and be able to assess for themselves. I've also reverted a second removal of references by you which were accompanied by the rather assuming edit summary "I think everyone accepts that this conflates to disparate usages of the word," also made while the AfD was in full progress, __meco (talk) 13:59, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Offline? Assume good faith. The article and book are online: [5][6]. They don't discuss Archetypal astrology and thus they are irrelevant. (and you can see above for comments that it's already been noted that Kepler and Shakespeare etc are just grafted into the article. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:45, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My apology for doing you wrong. Your recent nomination for deletion of Stanislav Grof didn't consolidate your standing as a level-headed contributor and did play a part in my judging you. I relied also on the fact that these references were introduced without linking to the existing online journal. I can't think why that wasn't done. I have now read "A Daniel Come to Judgement? Dennett and the Revisioning of Transpersonal Theory", and I can accede your contention that this article does neither mention nor discuss the phenomenon that is the subject of the nominated article. As for the other reference, I am unable to retrieve p.115 of that book from Google Books. How were you able to do that? Now, all of this does not detract from my demand that the article must not be pruned of references (good, bad or irrelevant) during the AfD process. We need all available data to be able to make the right decision, and well-meaning editors removing information from the article which they deem inappropriate is a level of assistance that isn't constructive at this stage. The irony of trying to "improve" an article which is considered plainly deletion-worthy should be acknowledged as well in all this. __meco (talk) 10:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The search feature allows you to find references to specific words and shows relevant snippets, even in pages which can't be viewed in full. There is no use of relevant words. Try to explain archetypal cosmology without using any of the words archetype, archetypal, cosmology or astrology. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:23, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 20:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Zachariel. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:33, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment  Has a reliable source said that Archetypal Cosmology is a pseudoscience?  Archai is covered in Google scholar.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment  I didn't understand the significance of this AfD and the one for archetypal astrology until I saw the snow and speedy keep for Stanislav Grof, who is one of the founders of the field of transpersonal psychology, has both an MD and a PhD, and spent 14 years at the Esalen Institute as a scholar in residence.  This article by Grof takes on the exact issue of scientific skepticism of astrology as it relates to Archetypal Cosmology, which "was rejected not on the basis of scientific proof that its premises were false".  The article also gives the perspective that archetypes were part of both the Greek philosophy and Jung's work.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The source you recommemend does not meet WP:RS by a longshot. It is not an independent source, but a self-promotional brochure published by the originator and chief proponent of the subject of the article, Richard Tarnas, who is listed as the "senior editorial advisor". According to the "journal's" own website, it's mission is:
"Archai is dedicated to furthering the research orientation and methodology established by Richard Tarnas in Cosmos and Psyche: Intimations of a New World View (New York: Viking, 2006)." [[7]].
The material is deceptively packaged as a "scholarly" journal. There is no evidence that any sort of scholarly editorial or peer-review takes place, and the "journal" has never been cited by real-world scholars. Being listed on Google Scholar is no indication of a publication having any sort of credibility or standing in the real-world scholarly community.
As for the author having a Ph.D. and an M.D., that is also immaterial because he is publishing outside of the normal academic peer-reviewed pubication system. Lots of good scientists, even some with Nobel Prizes, have kooky ideas that they publish in fringe journals. This does not add to the notability of their ideas, though, unless independent scholars in the real-world scholarly community seriously discusses them in real academic publications.Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:17, 2 July 2012 (UTC). Updated Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:28, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Notability seems to be questionable at best, and since we already have a better developed article about Psychological astrology I see no good reason to keep a standalone article for "Archetypal cosmology". Creating articles for every term that has been coined in astrology amounts to giving undue weight to fringe concepts within a fringe field. MakeSense64 (talk) 07:14, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As per Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, "...there is no practical limit to the number of topics Wikipedia can cover...".  Unscintillating (talk) 02:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
["Association for Psychological Astrology" "Journal of Archetypal Cosmology"] as a Google search only gets 7 hits, so I think that merging Archetypal cosmology and Psychological astrology would be WP:SYNTH.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  I concur with goethean's last comment. Extreme "fringiness", if taken as a legitimate excuse for deletion, would entail the removal of any topic - scientific, literary, artistic, or otherwise - that was not popular to some degree. Certain details, e.g. references, may need to be cleaned up but that is a different matter. Axel (talk) 00:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is where my thoughts were leading also. If you were to write an article on Kepler's cosmology, no one would care, or even notice. But when you write about contemporary astrology, you enter the culture wars. — goethean ॐ 01:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The burden of notability on a fringe theory is greater than WP:GNG, see the relevant part of the fringe guidelines, Wikipedia:FRINGE#Unwarranted_promotion_of_fringe_theories: "For a fringe theory to be considered notable, it is not sufficient that it has been discussed, positively or negatively, by groups or individuals, even if those groups are notable enough for a Wikipedia article. To be notable, secondary reliable sources must have commented on it, disparaged it, or discussed it. Otherwise it is not notable enough for a dedicated article in Wikipedia.". That is the bar. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Have you found any reliable academic sources that consider this journal to be "fringe"?  If so, just exactly how do they state it?  Unscintillating (talk) 20:18, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any reliable academic sources that consider it in any shape or form. Note that the article states that it is based on astrology and astrological techniques. Astrology is a fringe subject. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:28, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So what we can say is that The Journal of Archetypal Cosmology has existed since 2009 and there have been no sources cited showing academics objecting to their lack of academic discipline.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, we can't say that, because we have no source, so original research. It would also be blatantly dishonest. The only reason no one has objected to their lack of academic discipline is that no one has bothered to comment on it at all. The burden of proof is on YOU to prove that the source is reliable according to WP:V, not on us to prove otherwise. ALL sources are "guilty until proven innocent" by our policies. And no "proof of innocence" exists for your source. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Who is "us"?  Wikipedia is not a battleground.  Are you trying to build consensus?  Unscintillating (talk) 02:09, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the sentence to be more precise.  Hope that helps, Unscintillating (talk) 00:29, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. It's still dishonest because it conveniently conceals the fact that no one has ever bothered to comment on the "journal" at all. And it's irrelevant anyway, because we need positive proof that the "journal" is considered reliable by in the academic community. This is not a court of law, where innocence is presumed until proven otherwise. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:41, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need to prove that the journal is considered reliable by the academic community. This article concerns a topic defined as fringe, and fringe subjects are allowed to be explored on pages that are dedicated to those subjects. If the ideas were known to be accepted by mainstream academic sources they would no longer be fringe, but mainstream. The use of reliable sources is only required when "describing the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner". Read WP:PARITY: "views of adherents should not be excluded from an article on [say] creation science solely on the basis that their work lacks peer review, other considerations for notability should be considered as well". -- Zac Δ talk! 02:45, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nice misinterpretation. The burden is on YOU to prove that the source is reliable by WP policies. No one said that the topic has to be accepted by the mainstream community, but that it has to have been commented on it, disparaged it, or discussed it by high quality independent reliable secondary sources. "Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles".WP:PARITY means that we can use high-quality non-peer reviewed mainstream sources to criticize a fringe topic. It does not permit low-quality non-independent fringe sources like this. You also obviously didn't see the part about "other measures of notability". That means mention in high quality independent reliable secondary sources. In-universe notability does nothing to establish notability here on WP. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but claiming that "no one has bothered" is not objective, because you don't know one way or the other.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:09, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This idea of "dishonest" has no place in an academic discussion.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:09, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is it your opinion that we use WP:V to identify reliable sources?  WP:IRS is a guideline called WP:Identifying reliable sources.  WP:V is content policy that is used to determine what material we allow within an article.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:09, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This may not be a court of law, but we use the force of reason, and we use evidence.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:09, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1) Do you have any proof that anybody in the mainstream academic has bothered to substantially discuss Tarnas's concept of archetypal cosmology? Without that, you don't have an article per Wikipedia:FRINGE#Unwarranted_promotion_of_fringe_theories.
2) It's dishonest by any measure. And this isn't an academic discussion. It's a discussion about WP policy.
3) Of course we use WP:V to establish the reliability of sources. WP:IRS is an extension of WP:V.
4) There is no evidence that this source is reliable. You haven't provided any. Nor has anyone else. And "unreliable" is the default verdict here on WP.
and 5) The source also fails because it's not independent. According to its own webpage, it was founded explicitly to promote Tarnas's concept of archetypal cosmology, and Tarnas is listed as a "senior editorial advisor".
The source clearly fails to meet our policy requirements, so further discussion is pointless. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As we have established, being a fringe topic is neither here nor there so long as the policies are appropriately applied. A commitment to include more explanation and reference to the use of the term as it applies to others such as Kepler would fully satisfy the concern about the topic having been discussed in reliable secondary sources, since these are not lacking (for example). As someone who owns Kepler's Harmony of the World and has studied it with interest, I would say that there is a clear connection of ideas, although they have been expressed in different ways. It would be good to have a page which explains the different ways the term has been used, when, and by who, and the ideas that are being represented by it. -- Zac Δ talk! 20:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, the problem is precisely that such sources are lacking. I see no indication that a source that describes Kepler's cosmology as "archetypal" is talking about anything related to Tarnas's ideas. In the absence of any reliable sources that connect these various people and things, the article is (and will remain) a concretion of original synthesis. You may conclude that there's a connection, but others may not (or do not); that's why Wikipedia requires sources before it can make such a connection. It's just not the case that Wikipedia can say anything about anything "as long as the policies are appropriately applied." Sometimes the policies (and the broad principles behind them) mean that Wikipedia remains silent. If there are in fact credible sources that establish a connection between the various things that this article tries to link together, now would be the time to bring them forward. --Amble (talk) 21:00, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Amble. That would be OR and SYNTH. There are no reliable sources that tie Tarnas's and Kepler's ideas together in any way. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, self evidently the WP:FRINGE guidelines which discuss issues related to notability throughout, do matter for AfDs on fringe topics (btw WP:GNG isn't policy either, it's a guideline too). Also you appear to have chosen the only source that appears to exist on Kepler and archetypal cosmology and say that there is lots more? I note the google books search which was used to locate the Kepler source: [8]. It turns out there is only one book which significantly mentions this: the one you link above by Martens. The two of the other three references which return matches are the same book review of the book you showed (the other is a dissertation).
But that's besides the main point which is, it doesn't even fit the description of archetypal cosmology which is in the article, you are connecting disparate things when no reliable source makes the connection. What we have is sources which match a similar name when googled and then dumped into the article alongside fringe views by Tarnas and Co. As a result of this approach, we have people like Shakespeare where the source mentions Archetypes in a fictional world. Then we have the sources you added about Daniel Dennett where the only mention of the word "archetypal" is to say: "Dennett’s popular image is of an archetypal reductionist" (archetypal in this circumstance means "Very typical of a certain kind of person or thing"). IRWolfie- (talk) 21:08, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware of any sources which link Democritus or Lucretius to Daniel Dennett, but they are both discussed at the materialist article, because they are both materialists. I'm not aware of any sources which link the Yin-yang to Descartes, but they are both discussed at dualism, because — you guessed it — they are both examples of dualism. The policies that you are concocting here would devastate many articles if applied uniformly rather than selectively. And again User:IRWolfie- avoids the example of Kepler, presumably because it contradicts his point. Kepler cannot be banished as "fringe", and yet Kepler's archetypal cosmology is similar to Tarnas'. — goethean ॐ 21:41, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the one that seems to mention Democritus, Lucretius and Daniel Dennett: Materialism: an affirmative history and definition [9]. There are others. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the connection as Goethean does - but the point I was making has been missed: the page should explain the use of the term according to its different uses; hence I would like to see the content on Kepler developed a little, to show how the term is used by authors who describe Kepler's ideas (demonstrations from google books more on Google scholar and here are others on the web - there are plenty of reliable secondary sources on this point, as I said.
As someone whose main editorial interest is the development of better quality content, I realise how important it is to have pages that can be wiki-linked when certain terms arise in other articles - where those terms might be used in quotes, for example, or brief explanations that are not able to detail the meaning of the topic properly on the linking page. So unless WP has now become one page short of another entry, I see many good reasons for this article's inclusion and development. (But I've made my point, and it seems to me that everyone else who is also contributing comments repeatedly has made theirs too.) -- Zac Δ talk! 23:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Zac, seriously, just look at the links you are showing. The only positive matches for Kepler and "Archetypal Cosmology" are the ones I have shown. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The somewhat elementary point that I was making is that the validity of including both Democritus and Dennett in the materialism article (or of including the yin-yang and Descartes in the dualism article) does not depend on your happening to find both mentioned in a reliable source. Your argument above (that no reliable source mentions Kepler's and Tarnas') implies that it does. There is no Wikipedia policy that dictates that they need to be mentioned in the same source. — goethean ॐ 01:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's all immaterial without reliable independent sources to establish the notability of Tarnas's views. No independent reliable sources, no article. Period. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:55, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of reliable sources. — goethean ॐ 02:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then name them. You haven't so far. Nor has anyone else. We can't take your word for it. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:22, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: In the ten, thirteen days since this AfD was posted, nobody has yet produced any high-quality reliable independent secondary sources to establish the notability of this topic per Wikipedia:FRINGE#Unwarranted_promotion_of_fringe_theories. Nor has anybody produced any evidence supporting the faintest hope that any such sources will be found. The only sources produced to establish notability so far have been low-quality, unreliable, in-universe or self-promotional pseudo-academic ones that have never been discussed by anyone outside of the fringe community. Without reliable independent secondary sources, any further discussion is pointless. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:38, 5 July 2012 (UTC) Updated Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • They've been determined to be "low quality", etc., etc., etc., etc., by a group of editors...oh, what's that you say? It's the same people who are voting that this article should be deleted? That seems...somewhat subjective, arbitrary, and based on personal beliefs rather than any pre-established Wikipedia policy. — goethean ॐ 03:45, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DV - if you haven't been able to see the links to references already given, it's no surprise your selective vision impedes your reading of WP:PARITY. But it's clear this discussion is stuck in stalemate, with no new points being made, and no other parties contributing fresh opinions -- Zac Δ talk! 04:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I must be completely blind, then, because I still can't see the part about some clown's "theory" being notable just because the clown and his buddies say it is. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 04:22, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Zac, your references don't mention or discuss the concepts of this article, for example these two [10]. Meco above, who voted keep, has checked and agreed that the first of these refs (the first one is readily available in full, the second isn't but relevant snippets can be seen) does not support the text it is meant to verify and has nothing to do with this topic. Similarly with the Shakespeare reference, it is talking about archetypes in literature, a different concept applied to fictional works. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe is being linked to the topic by this author [[11]], printed by this publisher: [12], a publisher who advertise the magical healing properties of stones as well, this source is not reliable for stating that "The phrase has been used to describe the ideas of ... Goethe" as is in the article. Furthermore, the text isn't even verified by this unreliable source, the source says "Archetypal cosmology and biology seek to find what Goethe called Morphotypes". The fact that all of these references were re-inserted after removal is also a good indicator that this sort of synthesis, OR and poor sourcing is likely to continue. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
...nobody has yet produced any high-quality reliable independent secondary sources to establish the notability of this topic...
This is an a priori truth. It is not possible for any to exist by definition. — goethean ॐ 18:45, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The bottom line is that there appears to be no coverage of this concept in independent sources. (The only sources cited in the article that deal directly with the concept are those associated with Tarnas and his colleagues; the use of the others is either OR or SYN.) The topic thus fails the GNG. Deor (talk) 16:40, 7 July 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.
Allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Archetypal_cosmology
No tags for this post.