Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julia Parker (astrologer)

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 keep. Sandstein 07:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Parker (astrologer)[edit]

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

Poor notability, no information that is not on husband's page at Derek Parker MakeSense64 (talk) 13:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that comparison of the two pages clearly shows that the above statement is fallacious. Derek Parker (talk) 01:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this biography subject is one of the best known contemporary astrologers in the world. The book she co-authored is one of the best selling popular astrology books in the world. She was a President of the Faculty of Astrological Studies, and remains a Patron. She has apeared on TV shows and in mainstream media regularly. She is clearly notable. Zac Δ talk 15:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources?

Even if you find them, point 6 and 7 of the specifics on WP:ACADEMIC make clear that being the head of institutes for pseudoscience or having written widely popular books on pseudoscience, does in itself not satisfy notability criteria. If academics cannot be notable for such pseudoscientific activities, then do we put the bar lower for non-academics? That would discriminate against academics.

So, in this case notability has to come from WP:BIO or WP:GNG. MakeSense64 (talk) 16:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For other publications by Julia Parker, please see note below. Derek Parker (talk) 01:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question 1 - can Zac or someone point out which book is being referred to? Is it this one? I note that its Amazon rank is over 5.5 million which is extremely low. Or am I not looking at things right (such as it being a 1971 book)?--A bit iffy (talk) 16:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question 2 - is the "Faculty of Astrological Studies" actually a notable institution? I can't find much beyond circular references, so it is difficult for me to assess.--A bit iffy (talk) 16:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC) The Faculty of Astrological Studies is a teaching body which holds well supervised examinations.[reply]

According to the article the bestseller was this one: [1] , with a pagerank over 800000. A newer version from 1990 seems to be this one [2] , page rank over 1.5 million. MakeSense64 (talk) 16:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~In that case, delete. All the article seems to demonstrate is that Julia Parker is a co-author of books with no much impact.~~--A bit iffy (talk) 16:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my position to unsure. I feel a bit out of my depth here as I feel I don't have enough grasp of the astrology community to gauge whether Julia Parker is sufficiently noteworthy, and I don't have the inclination to try to understand the issues involved.--A bit iffy (talk) 06:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The best way to determine notability is whether she meets the general notability guideline. If so, that trumps everything else immediately and is an automatic keep. CycloneGU (talk) 14:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A book from 1990 probably achieved its peak well before Amazon came to be - and if Amazon came to be in the 1990s, it wouldn't have peaked during the 2000s. Amazon page rank is thus expected to be quite low as newer books with newer ideas take the forefront. Also, astrology is not as popular in the "Books" category as, say, novels. CycloneGU (talk) 02:06, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It should perhaps be pointed out that Julia Parker has also written or co-written books on travel, health, mythology, the theatre, dream interpretation,physiognomy and the architectural history of Sydney. She has also published two novels, both of which have gone into two editions.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Derek Parker (talk • contribs)

Are these other books of significance in some way? --A bit iffy (talk) 05:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to New Society, vol 23 (published by University of Michigan, 1973) the first edition of The Compleat Astrologer book sold over a million copies (see here) That's just one edition of one of her titles Zac Δ talk 20:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Nominating editor has filed a COI dispute at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#COI on astrology pages that is not going in his favour. Per analysis there, it is being determined that this is a WP:COI-related nomination. He has a wish to remove western astrology articles from Wikipedia as a vendetta against a site that banished him. May have nothing to do with this AfD, but I feel it's worth noting for the closing administrator. I was prepared to speedy close this myself as a WP:POINT nom. but A bit iffy has voted delete, so I will let it run its course. ~~I remain neutral.~~ As for my vote: keep. Satisfies WP:GNG. CycloneGU (talk) 23:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Oh dear, this is going to take me some time to understand. I hope to respond again in a few hours.--A bit iffy (talk) 04:21, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No rush, I merely included it for the sake of disclosure. CycloneGU (talk) 04:39, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 02:59, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My filing a COIN on a couple editors does not make this article (and its subject) any better or worse than it is. Has tags (not by me) for almost a year, and a citation-needed tag since 2007. Other than a list of books she co-authored there is not much in this article. If one of the books sold a million copies in 1970, then that may make the book notable, but does that automatically mean this co-author is also notable? MakeSense64 (talk) 13:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More thoughts etc. The ref http://www.astrologer.com/live/astrologers/parker.htm doesn't work. I assume it's just link rot. However, I can't find any mention of the book on that astrologer.com, and there's only a fleeting mention of Jlia Parker in Google's cache here.

I've not found a single review in a mainstream publication (e.g. New York Times, London Review of Books) on any Julia Parker book on any subject. This suggests non-notability of Julia Parker's writings.

The ISBN doesn't exist as far as I can tell. I have little grasp of ISBNs, so I don't know whether (a) I'm not looking things up correctly, or (b) whether the quoted ISBN is malformed, or (c) whether the book is old. Can someone advise, please?

I see that the 1990 version has an Amazon rank of around 100,000. Along with User:CycloneGU's point about it not being a novel, this suggests some notability for the book. However, I don't think a co-author can just inherit notability.

Re "conflict of interest" assertion and ANI complaint: tl;dr. In a way I suppose these matters aren't relevant to whether Julia Parker merits an article, and I still haven't come across a compelling reason why there should an article on her.

So I'm sticking with my delete recommendation for now. I'm happy though to change my mind (as I have done in past AFD discussions) if the necessary evidence is presented.--A bit iffy (talk) 23:31, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are right that it doesn't matter who nominated the AfD. The article is judged on its own merits. Here is an interesting example of an AfD that got deleted despite being nominated by a banned editor: [3]

MakeSense64 (talk) 07:40, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why you bring this up. Are you saying you are going to be banned or blocked soon? CycloneGU (talk) 13:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The page clearly needs editing, citation and expansion. I don't believe using Amazon's 'flavour of the hour' on selected titles is a fair way to judge a best-selling author of at least 31 books published by well known publishers such as Dorling Kindersley (London WC2) over 40 years.

Julia Parker's biography page has been on Wikipedia since 2005.
Paul Kurtz in Skeptical Odysseys, Prometheus Books (2001) p.192 writes "Julia and Derek Parker, The Complete Astrologer (1985), which sold over a million copies in ten languages. The first is a former President of the British Astrological Association" [4] Kurtz is making the point that the Parkers are notable.
Julia Parker is better known of the couple as an astrologer which is confirmed by her presidency of an association established in 1958. While Derek is better known as a broadcaster. Robert Currey talk 12:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, Julia Parker's biography page has been on Wikipedia since 2005 is not a reason to keep the article as much as the other two. CycloneGU (talk) 13:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the point of co-authorship I should make it clear that I am not an astrologer and indeed have written one book (The Question of Astrology (1971) which includes criticism of the subject; my part as co-author was in the areas of history and social commentary. [Derek Parker] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Derek Parker (talk • contribs) 02:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't understand the suggestion that there is no online reference - there is plenty. Try this search in Google books: Julia Parker or this Compleat Astrologer or this New Compleat Astrologer. I've added a few references today - there are plenty more to add if someone else has the time and inclination; although I feel every necessary point is now sufficiently demonstrated by independent sources. The guidance on Proposed deletion requests say they should be made on articles that are uncontroversially meeting the criteria for deletion. The only valid reason proposed for this is that there is a failure to meet the notability criteria, but it's a no-brainer that's not the case - this isn't worthy of being called a controversial matter, let alone an uncontroversial one.

To Derek Parker I would request that you complete the missing ISBN numbers for the list of published works. Also, is it possible for you to submit a free-to-reuse and redistribute photograph of Julia Parker on Wikimedia Commons or else a copyright-free illustration of the Compleat Astrologer book cover which could be included in the content of this page? (Or some other graphical element which would add a little more interest to the page?) If you can, please leave a message on my talk page and I'll come back and add the code which shows the photograph/illustraion on this page Zac Δ talk 11:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article. I can't see there is any reason to tag it for deletion. Parker's list of publications is surely long enough to suggest she is notable. Please see the British Library catalogue for a list of her books held by the library, some with her husband, Derek. I think this should count as a reasonable and objective record of her publishing history.Paul Quigley (talk) 15:20, 2 August 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.