Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SAMVA USA chart

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, including images; SPA "keep" opinion discounted. Sandstein (talk) 20:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SAMVA USA chart[edit]

This is a non-notable 'chart' created as original research by an internet user interested in astrology. The text is taken verbatim from the internet user's blog , which has also been inappropriately linked to as the only reference for this 'chart' The pictures are also original research creations - Other, historical references are again simply synthesized original research.

Delete, per nomination. The main problem is the chart absolutely appears to be original research. This information would need to be published in a third-party source, (not simply on a blog) and then referenced here to meet notability, and verifiability policies. How can an article about a topic be notable enough to have its own entry in Wikipedia if there isn't a single published source to reference? Brando130 (talk) 16:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable, no secondary sources, effectively a copyright violation (though curing that wouldn't make it an appropriate article topic). Huon (talk) 08:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to judge notability sometimes involves more subjectivity than we would like to admit. There are shades of gray in life. Some Wikipedia editors seem to apply a higher standard of proof of notability to articles dealing with non-canonical subjects like astrology. There is a form of bias that originates in a type of "informed prejudice". It is the basis of all "I know better" pronouncements. This type of bias needs to be kept in check in a world where the information being judged is harder to judge than the person making the judgement thinks it is. The astrological literature, being non-canonical, is not organised in terms of reference articles as is the case of most canonical research subjects, which then serves as a springboard for the notability of the original research. If you read the historical evidence presented, it will become clear the argument made about the birth of the Union is legitimate, with plenty of references to historical literature. In fact the SAMVA USA chart is based on the research of both a historian and an astrologer. This chart is identical in nature to arguments made for any other time proposed as being the birth of the country. For instance, the chart advocated by the late David Solte for the USA is very similar, as may be seen in the section on USA horoscopes in the Mundane astrology article. Disagree as you will about the merits of such claims or the astrological interpretation offered for each horoscope, but please also consider that for those people doing such research, the work is dead serious. The originality has been established in fliers, articles, classes, discussion boards, seminars, etc. As such, please consider that a survey article of the main findings is considered informative for those who follow astrology. Indeed, Wikipedia has a policy to approve any subject matter even if the scientific content is held controversial by those who do not believe in it. If it is a part of the intellectual life it becomes a valid subject matter for Wikipedia. Finally, the copyright issue could be addressed by rewriting and shortening and then giving the reference to the more detailed exposition externally. Odin 85th gen (talk) 00:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Disagree as you will about the merits of such claims or the astrological interpretation offered for each horoscope, but please also consider that for those people doing such research, the work is dead serious." The problem is Wikipedia is NOT the place to publish this research - this should be referenced in a third-party published source. That is an all-encompassing Wikipedia standard, it is not thrown out for astrology articles. Brando130 (talk) 16:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak keep though it needs some editing. The history part is somewhat peripheral. The astrology does not seem excessive detail for the subject, and it's hard to say it is less significant or valid than anything else in the subject. The copyvio seems only in the exact reproduction of the actual charts--discussing them is not copyvio. DGG (talk) 17:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was asked to take another look, and , yes, it does appear that there are no sources for this except the blog mentioned below. and what does that blog give as it's source?--Wikipedia. DGG (talk) 17:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The text itself is taken verbatim from chart's blog, not the reproduced images. Brando130 (talk) 16:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The author has identified an event's date and time that matches with properly referenced history, and used a brand of astrology to see it's significance. Astrology is considered a non-scientific subject, but this shouldn't be the issue undertoned or tabled. This article is importantly notable within two spheres: 1)amongst historians and researchers seeking the event date for the actual birth of the nation USA and 2)astrologers who seek the information for their work that matches with history. Certainly the author uses and promotes a brand of astrology, but that appears inconsequential, since it's being used as a tool to measure the importance of the event, a common thing amongst all brands of astrology. Replyatom (talk) 00:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The author has identified an event's date and time that matches with properly referenced history, and used a brand of astrology to see it's significance." - Yes, exactly. original research. Also a little strange that a vote on this chart would be your first ever edit to Wikipedia. Brando130 (talk) 16:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Without wp:reliable sources, this article should not exist here. I see no reliable sources, have found none on my own, and frankly can't anticipate that any will be coming in the future. Xymmax (talk) 18:34, 10 April 2008 (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.