Deborah Houlding

Deborah Houlding (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)

No significant coverage in reliable sources, fails WP:GNG. Fails WP:BASIC; Lack of reliable and independent sources "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published[3] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.[5]" Article also subject to Wikipedia:FRINGE#Notability: "A Fringe subject (a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory) is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, in at least one major publication that is independent of their promulgators and popularizers." IRWolfie- (talk) 22:29, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:37, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:37, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, article has sufficient sources. While "Astrology" may be a "fringe" theory, it is a very popular one. Unless the article Astrology is deleted via AfD, then its notable practitioners are notable and not subject to WP:FRINGE. Yworo (talk) 22:38, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"notable practitioners are notable", that's completely circular. You have to show she is notable at the world at large, thats the point of the AfD. Astrology as a newspaper reading exercise is popular, as a belief system not so much.

Wikipedia:FRINGE#Notability: "A Fringe subject (a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory) is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, in at least one major publication that is independent of their promulgators and popularizers." IRWolfie- (talk) 23:07, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And which one of the fringe sources do you think meeets WP:BASIC? IRWolfie- (talk)

Most of the sources on the article. Other editors may review them for themselves. I find you to be a bit overzealous at identifying sources as "fringe" as well as underperforming when searching for sources yourself. You are clearly "on a mission", and I'm not speaking to you in my responses, but to the other neutral editors who respond. That being the case, feel free not to reply to everything I say as if I am challenging you or something. Yworo (talk) 02:28, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Identify one source that helps the article meet WP:BASIC. 6 of the sources are primary (by Deborah Houlding herself), so it's empirically impossible for it to be "most of the sources". [1] is a one sentence mention. Pankaj, S., The World of Internet. Retrieved 2011-06-05., APH Publishing, 2009; p.83. ISBN 81-7648-459-8, ISBN 978-81-7648-459-6 is just a catalog. Parker, Julia; Derek Parker (2007). Astrology. Doring Kindersley Limited. pp. 296. ISBN 978-1-4053-2198-3. gives a passing mention. No significant coverage, not even in fringe sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IRWolfie – your point "No significant coverage, not even in fringe sources." is now redundant. There is significant coverage including fringe sources as per various references provided below. Minerva20 (talk) 19:39, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Non-notable. I've done extensive research into this person, as she was used as a source by one of our fringe promoters, and the only thing I found in reliable sources is that she wrote a few academic papers during her graduate studies. Not bad work, but far, far short of her qualifying as an academic.

As far as her astrology is concerned, she gets absolutely no mention whatsoever in reliable sources. All coverage of her is in fringe sources that can't pass WP:RS by a wide mile. As no reliable independent sources exist, attempting to gauge her position in the fringe community would be OR.

Absent substantial coverage in multiple reliable independent secondary sources, and absent even the faintest hope that such sourcing will ever be found, there is no chance that this person will ever meet any of our notability requirements. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:38, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All these points have been roundly refuted by subsequent posts. However, I would like to take issue with your argument that "attempting to gauge her position in the fringe community would be OR". This argument has been used in several of the biographies of astrologers that you have put up for deletion. It is based on an inappropriate interpretation of what constitutes a reliable source for the context and your refusal to admit references from subject-related publications. In a biography page such as this, fringe publications that are trusted within their field are reliable sources for showing the opinions of members of that field. The guidelines on sourcing are clear that proper sourcing always depends on context and common sense. I will be posting another reference from a typical reliable source below. Minerva20 (talk) 19:41, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: According to the web, she seems to be a big-wheel in astrology and maybe it's not surprising that editors use her and her website as a source. If Astrology is a fringe subject, it is certainly not one where being an academic is required to be a notable astrologist. The content on the page is poor, but better than the other fringe biographies you have put up for deletion. This one doesn't match up with the web and nearly half the references are to her own articles and publications. The remaining secondary sources are good enough and AFAIK independent of her "promulgators and popularizers". Kooky2 (talk) 22:51, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, none of the secondary sources comes close to being reliable. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:00, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed some of the primary sourced links and added secondary sources including significant coverage on Houlding in an article from a woman's fashion magazine. It is one matter questioning astrological sources as reliable over controversial claims about astrology, but non-controversial coverage by what appears to be established organisations, long-standing and prominent magazines, well-known writers and figures and international groups in the field are easily verifiable and reliable sources. Kooky2 (talk) 15:47, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the fashion source. Which one is it? A prominent astrology magazine isn't prominent for the world at large. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:05, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find the fashion magazine article, either. Anyway, that would be a poor source for a pseudoscience-related topic. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:57, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The link was there but I have made it clearer. The links to overseas awards, the interviews, being a keynote speaker at international conferences and the fact that the book Temples of the Sky has been translated into Czech [2], Italian [3] and German (awaiting publication) provides evidence that she is notable on an international scale. Kooky2 (talk) 15:51, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Deborah Houlding may not be an academic, but she appears to be considered a significant source in academic titles including a reference from a best selling author Dr Robert Lomas. A search on Google scholar on "Deborah Houlding" produced 14 listings mostly from reliable independent sources - maybe some of these could be used to improve the sourcing. Minerva20 (talk) 11:23, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Show one of these academic sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:10, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IRWolfie – Please follow this link to see how Houlding's ideas are found worthy of discussion and evaluation by Classic's Professor Stephan Heilen, in Ptolemy in Perspective: Use and Criticism of his Work from Antiquity to the Nineteenth Century, edited by Alexander Jones (Springer, 2006, ISBN 978-90-481-2787-0).

The Google Book preview shows only some of Heilen's discussion of her work, but enough for you to see that her ideas are taken seriously enough to be examined by academics/ authors from outside the astrological community as well as within it. I also found these references easily and quickly on Google books:

Turning the Solomon Key, Robert Lomas, p.54 (Fair Winds, ISBN: 9781592332298).

"Deborah Houlding, another astrologer, and writer on the history of astrology, says this field of mundane, or judicial astrology was …"

The gospel and the zodiac: the secret truth about Jesus, Bill Darlison, p.138 (Duckworth Overlook, ISBN: 9781590200377)

"As Deborah Houlding informs us"

Moon-o-theism, Volume 2: Religion of a War and Moon God Prophet, p.15 (Yoel Natan, ISBN: 9781439297179)

"Deborah Houlding notes …":

To Dominus Vobisdu: Houlding does not need qualifications as an academic to gain notability as an astrologer. According to Heilen, Houlding's interest is not derived from an academic perspective but a practitioner's interest in understanding the origin of her practice. We need not assume that she is considered a reliable source within academia; the only onus is that her influence is significant enough for work to have been quoted by others, commented on, disparaged or discussed. Since this page concerns a person rather than an idea, the relevant policies are WP:BIO - the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice" – that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded". Houlding qualifies under the criteria for 'Creative Professionals': "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors" (see WP:AUTHOR criteria 1).

You can find sources that mention Houlding, but they are required to be reliable, and give significant detail about Houlding. As far as I can see neither of these are met. "The gospel and the zodiac: the secret truth about Jesus" is Christ myth theory meets astrology. I don't think "moon-o-theism" is reliable for anything beyond opinion, this is a BLP. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This point is simply not correct, IRWolfie. The first link is to Professor Stephan Heilan [4] - listed in the German Wikipedia as a classics scholar and published in a Springer Text. It's not unreasonable to state that this is an impeccable source and the publisher of the highest order. This appears to be a text book and I counted 12 pages that refer to Houlding - on one page he disagrees with her - which only happens if someone is an authority. Though I admire your fervour and work-rate, I don't know how you managed to miss that as it is our job to find sources and so far you and another editor, who writes that he has "extensive research into this person", don't seem to have done due diligence here.

Now I agree that Moon-o-theism and claims of the secret life of Jesus sound ludicrous, but we are discussing the notability of Bishop Ussher here not whether his belief that the world began in October 4004 BC on a Sunday is reliable or not. These are all independent published books and evidently reliable, we have to ask are they making up claims that Deborah Houlding is a writer of note? These are not random self-published blogs. Dr Robert Lomas has a PhD. in physics and is a university lecturer. He is a best-selling author - I have even read one of his books on Freemasonry. I think he was thought to be one of the characters that Dan Brown modelled Robert Langdon (protagonist of Da Vinci Code etc). Are you suggesting he is not a reliable source in referring to Houlding?

When I first saw this article, it seemed like a stub that could be deleted. However, editors have since uncovered considerably more reliable, independent, widespread, noteworthy material. This is an article badly in need of editing but frankly I don't think I am up to it. Kooky2 (talk) 19:02, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in the Ptolemy source that can be used, it's merely some passing coverage. "on one page he disagrees with her - which only happens if someone is an authority", Eh? Houlding is an expert because someone disagrees with her? Sound logic. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Experts don't have to agree - in fact they often disagree. However, when a recognised expert in a field puts his disagreement in print in a text book, the subject of his criticism is an authority - unless you are saying that Professor Heilen is using Houlding as a 'straw-man' - either way Houlding is notable in this field. I trust you are no longer questioning this as a reliable, independent source. Now you are saying 12 pages referring to her work is "merely a passing reference". I leave that judgement to the closer. Kooky2 (talk) 12:34, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Deborah Houlding is one of the leading astrologers today, known to the majority of practicing astrologer in the English language, and that is more than a few. Besides her book and many published articles, she is the administrator of http://www.skyscript.co.uk/, a large website that contains a wealth of articles by leading thinkers in astrology as well as lively forums on various aspects of astrology. These are undoubtedly among the biggest and most popular astrology forums in English. If you are looking for the mainstream in astrology, then this is where you can start. Keep this article. It needs some work right now but it will grow and become a valuable part of Wikipedia. Ken McRitchie (talk) 01:19, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A number of publications, in various languages have given significant coverage to her views and her work. The Mountain Astrologer ran a 10-page feature on her in 2006, describing her as “one of the foremost practitioners of horary astrology, well known for the magazine she published, and widely acclaimed for the book she authored.” It adds "Her workshops have been delivered in places as far apart as Hawaii and Tasmania, and her articles (which have graced the pages of most well known astrological journals) have been translated into many languages". She is also well known within the astrological community as the creator of the Skyscript website, which is independently described by the Mountain Astrologer as "one of the most active web sites dedicated to exploring the philosophy and practical application of astrological symbolism".

The Mountain Astrologer has a good reputation within its field. It is editorially controlled, independent and provides another reliable source that demonstrates why she has influenced her peers and successors. The article details are: An Interview with Deborah Houlding by Garry Phillipson, The Mountain Astrologer, vol 19, no.2, Issue 125 - Feb/Mar 2006, pp.47-56. (The Mountain Astrologer, Green Grass Valley, CA, ISSN 1079-1345). Minerva20 (talk) 19:44, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"its field" is pseudoscience, it's not a reliable academic field, so stop portraying it as such. It's not reliable for historical details and this is clear puffery. Show independent non-fringe sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:23, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Notability is established by substantial coverage in reliable indpendent secondary sources, and the sourcing provided so far are anything but, amounting to scant and tangential mention at best. Claims that Houlding is notable within the astrological community are therefore OR, and not supported by reliable sources. Claims that there is a campaign to stifle fringe views are spurious, as WP has plenty of well-referenced articles on fringe topics, such as creationism and homeopathy, for example. These articles, however, are based on reliable independent sources written by real-world scholars, not on in-universe sourcing and promotional materials written by fringe proponents. Unfortunately, astrology has generated very little interest outside of the fringe community, and reliable sources are scarce as hen's teeth. Per WP:FRINGE, topics that are not mentioned outside of the fringe community should not be mentioned in WP articles. We have no basis to gauge the notability of fringe proponents without reliable independent secondary sources. As I said, that would be OR. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:22, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Threads presented since your vote show good coverage from inside the astrological community and outside of it - eminent academics and popular magazines. Are you suggesting that The Mountain Astrologer cited by Minerva20 is unreliable, or not independent, or not secondary? According to the WP page it is a reputable publication. Kooky2 (talk) 00:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course The Mountain Astrologer is generally unreliable. "According to the WP page it is a reputable publication, don't you see a problem with that sentence? "Good coverage" by academics has not been shown. I suggest you check RSN on Houlding and The Mountain Astrologer. It is clear that neither are generally considered reliable. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:23, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, what is this "topics that are not mentioned outside of the fringe community should not be mentioned in WP articles"? I can't find it in WP:FRINGE - I think you are muddling it with WP:ONEWAY "Fringe views, products or the organizations who promote them may be mentioned in the text of other articles only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way". Obviously that doesn't apply here. Kooky2 (talk) 00:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FRINGE: "A Fringe subject (a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory) is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, in at least one major publication that is independent of their promulgators and popularizers." Clearly a BLP about an astrologer is an aspect of astrology. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Deborah Houlding appeared in the BBC 'Everyman' programme: 'Twinkle, Twinkle, An Illustrated History of Astrology', (1997) as part of a documentary connected with astrology and religion. I have it a recording of it. It was broadcast on the BBC in May 1997 Minerva20 (talk) 14:01, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Appearing on a TV show doesn't make someone notable as you should be well aware by now. Concrete and significant sourcing is required, material that is suitable and reliable for being used directly in the article to make an article that is actually WP:NPOV. The attempts (in this AfD and elsewhere) to characterise Astrology as a legitimate field when it clearly isn't, is part of the problem. Much of the keep votes have been attempting to post volumes of tid bits and passing mentions, and unreliable fringe sourcing, that doesn't actually demonstrate notability but is really scrapping the barrel. Kepler was an astrologer, and he is notable. Why is that? It's because we have copious amounts of sources with a reputation for fact checking who have published about Kepler. These sources discuss Kepler in large detail. Compare that to the current case where we only have a few passing mentions in actual reliable sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:39, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is a published biography on Houlding in an academic journal that published the paper from one of the presentations she gave at the Warburg institute. The source details are:

• The Winding Courses of the Stars: Essays in Ancient Astrology,* eds. Charles Burnett and Dorian Giesler Greenbaum, Culture and Cosmos, vol. 11, nos 1 and 2, 2007, p.310. ISSN: 1368-6534

It reads:

Deborah Houlding is the past editor of The Traditional Astrologer magazine and author The Houses:Temples of the Sky. Her articles feature regularly in astrological journals and she currently acts as the web mistress of the skyscript site (www.skyscript.co.uk). She has a particular interest in researching the origins and development of astrological technique and as a consulting astrologer specialises in horary astrology. She is the principal of the STA school of traditional horary astrology, which offers courses by correspondence and intensive residential workshop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minerva20 (talk • contribs) 15:40, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Minerva20, I used this more authoritative independent source in the article. Kooky2 (talk) 16:59, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is going on with the rules here?

The Wikipedia guidelines are byzantine almost beyond comprehension, but I don't understand how IRWolfie can change them to suit a special purpose (in this case apparently to remove the Deborah Houlding article). Suddenly, today, without discussion, WP:FRINGE theories (or subjects) covers people too.

IRWolfie's version now says: "A 'Fringe subject' is an article where a significant claim to notability revolves around the relation of the article to the fringe theory. This includes the organizations, people, concepts or aspects of a fringe theory, and the fringe theory itself." This doesn't even make sense. How can an "subject" be a "article"? How can "claim to notability" be made on the basis of its fringe status? IRWolfie tries to spread the presumed contamination from the despised theory to all related "organizations, people, concepts or aspects of the fringe theory, and the fringe theory itself." I suppose this covers all conceivable bases, unless IRWolfie wants to add something else? Is Wikipedia just collapsing in a heap of babble rules? Ken McRitchie (talk) 01:35, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The current change is a clarification of the existing text which was "A Fringe subject (a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory) is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has ...". There is nothing new to what I have added beyond a clarification of scope. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:21, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am very concerned that IRWolfie has apparently attempted to change Wikipedia rules to patch up a flawed argument. I will certainly object to this attempted edit when I have an opportunity as I believe it will result in a range of issues. I anticipate that one issue will soon become evident here when two editors use this for what appears to be their particular interpretation of the rules and tendency to denigrate sources. I cannot imagine a situation in life be it a sport or a court case where when the evidence does not go their way, the proposers can change the rules to prop up a collapsing case. If any such proposed change does become permanent, it will affect many other biographies. However, in this instance it has been clearly shown that Houlding happens to have notability both inside and outside the field of astrology.

Also many thanks to those editors who helped with the editing. I think this biography is worth the investment in editing time. Kooky2 (talk) 12:44, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You will notice I have quoted the old version throughout here. The change has been made to clarify existing guidelines. There is no new interpretation here. This entire section is a red herring. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:12, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Single purpose

• To the closer, I would suggest looking at which accounts are WP:SPAs, and inactive accounts becoming active. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:15, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• To the closer, since I am fairly new (Aug 2011) to Wikipedia and my edits have been mainly confined to topics related to the broad field of astrology and history - one of my niche interests, I take it that IRWolfie's comments about SPAs are referring to me. The implication here is that I am pushing an agenda, which I take as ad hominem and I think I am entitled to defend myself. Up until now I have never been involved in this page and I hope one day I will have the time to edit a wider range of topics in Wikipedia. If anyone has a single purpose agenda, the closer should note that IRWolfie has made 125 edits of the astrology page in the last 5 months and Dominus Vobisdu 78 edits in the past year. All of these edits have shown a consistent pattern of anti-astrology POV pushing. His action in putting this and at least four other astrology pages up for deletion has to be interpreted in the light of this campaign to make it easier to 'patrol' what they call 'cruft' (see User_talk:IRWolfie) and to marginalise an ancient and still popular subject throughout the world from Wikipedia. Minerva20 (talk) 16:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've been trying to improve wikiproject astrology. With any large scale clean up, the non-notable topics get put up for AfD. I have an anti "astrology POV" in terms of articles, because I am working for NPOV. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe that you are working for NPOV, you must allow for the possibility that others also believe that they are NPOV even if they strongly disagree with your views. As such, we should all assume good faith and you should redact your advice to the closer that arguments presented here should be judged in any way by the editor's experience or editing history. The closer should be allowed to judge this page on the basis of the article: Deborah Houlding and the strength of the arguments presented and not on any emotional bias for or against what you refer to as a fringe theory or any ad hominem arguments. Minerva20 (talk) 08:10, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing bad faith about asking the closer to take into account Single Purpose Accounts. There is {{subst:spa}} as well for that reason, but I thought this was a less controversial way of doing it. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite neutral about the notability of the subject, pretty borderline. At any rate, I looked the contribution histories of the voters and I don't see any SPA account. Am I wrong? Cavarrone (talk) 13:21, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Minerva20 is (31 edits, 1 to another topic talk page). I didn't want to turn this into a big drama, hence I asked the admin to look and make their own mind up. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:18, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But not a new editor, and has never edited this particular article. Calling her a "SPA" is a reach. Yworo (talk) 16:24, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"A single-purpose account (SPA) is a user account or IP editor whose editing is limited to one very narrow area or set of articles, or whose edits to many articles appear to be for a common purpose." It doesn't matter if they aren't new, their edits are limited to astrology articles. Anyway, it's not important to debate it, the closer can take it on board as she/he sees fit. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:31, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IRWolfie, and Dominus Vobisdu, there are hundreds of Wikipedia articles on astrology, as well as more on its leaders like this one. You have a very long way to go if you are trying to remove astrology and related articles to the point where it becomes a "very narrow area or set of articles" to support your SPA accusations. Do you rationally think you can narrow it down to two or three articles and then you can try to make astrology go away entirely? And if it's not in Wikipedia, then it doesn't really exist? This is what your statements and activities seem to suggest. Astrology is a vast subject with an immense literature going back centuries that permeates deeply into many aspects of culture and philosophy and is very much alive today. An editor could spend a lifetime editing and adding to the WP astrology articles, covering its history, controversies, and ideas and not be SPA. I agree with removing some of the articles that are fringe within astrology, but by attacking articles on Deborah Houlding, John Addey, and Roy C. Firebrace you are starting at the very top, and these are not ideas but people. These are three of the most prominent astrologers of the past century. The thing these three people have in common is their ability to lead large astrological organizations and engage in lively, open discourse on astrology. You don't like that and would rather try to censor freedom of expression. I think this is where your purpose lies. Admit it. Ken McRitchie (talk) 00:45, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please, what they have in common is they are unrated in wikiproject astrology, and have no significant coverage in reliable sources. This isn't a grand conspiracy. There are ~600 articles related to astrology, that's a narrow set of the ~4,000,000. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:45, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I think the guidelines need to be made clearer before we can make an informed judgment as to notability. Specifically, we need to answer the following question: Do magazines, journals and other publications published by a pseudoscientific community qualify as reliable sources? I can't find anything in the guidelines that answers this question definitively. The article has a number of sources. Many of them are independent of the subject. But are they reliable? Under WP:RS, they must have a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. These sources may have such a reputation, but if they do that reputation is held among people who adhere to the pseudoscience and in the context of a practice deemed by the guidelines to be pseudoscience. Common sense tells me that we ought to be looking for sources independent of both the subject and the pseudoscience to establish notability; are there books and articles by people who don't practice astrology but who are writing, say, a history of astrology that reference the subject? This to me would provide a much more forceful claim to notability than a demonstration of his/her celebrity among adherents of the pseudoscience. --Batard0 (talk) 09:42, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is an important point to discuss, but I don't think this discussion is relevant for judging this particular biography. Whether a statement by a pseudoscientific organisation is reliable or not depends entirely on the claim. If the National Homeopathic Society states that someone presented a key note speech on a certain date, that can be taken as reliable, but if they claim that they can cure cancer then that is not reliable unless it can be verified by extensive, independent and reliable sources. Kooky2 (talk) 12:22, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's important to make these kinds of judgments while deciding how to write and source an article, but we're talking about notability here, not verifiability. We have to judge whether the person has received 1) significant coverage 2) from sources independent of the subject 3) that are reliable. With this article, I think 1 and 2 aren't an issue. But we must then judge the reliability of the sources in which the subject has been given significant coverage -- not the specific claims that the sources support. I guess what I'm saying is that the reliability of sources in the context of notability is different from the reliability of sources in the context of verifiability. Hence my comment. --Batard0 (talk) 20:58, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: from what I can see there is a sufficient range of references and notability appears established. Fireflo (talk) 11:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I found one good source, Daily Star January 23, 2011, but that would only contribute one sentence to the Wikipedia article. Looking in the article itself,[5] the cited sources appear to be Wikipedia reliable sources. The editors of the Wikipedia article are not running to a bunch of goofy website and citing those. The sources appear to be print based and have volume numbers, issue numbers, ISBN numbers. Just because the sources are from astrology doesn't mean they cannot have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy such as through the publication of corrections. By its nature, astrology does not lend itself to facts. I don't think it is fair to say that because astrology sources report on astrology, which does not lend itself to facts, the sources themselves cannot have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. It cost paper sources money when they print stories and they have to pick and choose between what stories to run through editorial decisions. They've published enough about Deborah Houlding so that the topic meets WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:49, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GNG doesn't accumulate to make significant coverage, sources are individually expected to meet it. Astrology sources are only reliable for the opinions of astrologers. Would you consider "The mountain astrologer" reliable for points about non-astrologers? IRWolfie- (talk) 10:22, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are at least ten independent, reliable sources from outside astrology now. Thanks for that link, Uzma Gamal. It appears that the Cox controversy over astrology was widely reported around the world. This kind of mocking criticism would help to balance the article. However, though the Daily Star is a major national newspaper, it is like most tabloids not a reliable source - less reliable than say The Mountain Astrologer. I will look into this more as I think Deborah Houlding's role should be reported.

IRWolfie, your hypothetical question is something of a red herring here and it would depend on the claim and context. I suggest you raise this question on the WP:FRINGE talk page. Kooky2 (talk) 11:07, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Kooky2)I think when you say "most tabloids not a reliable source," you are confusing a general understanding of what reliable is and what Wikipedia reliable source requires. A source does not have to be reliable based on an understanding of what some Wikipedia editors understand to be reliable. Rather, a source need only meet the criteria at Wikipedia reliable source. And whether the source meets that criteria is not based on subject opinions, e.g., its a goofy astrology source so it must be unreliable. A higher-quality source may replace a lower-quality source in an article, but both still can be Wikipedia reliable sources. Also, that replacement decision is a content improvement decision, not a deletion decision. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:09, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(IRWolfie) The topic needs to meet GNG, not the sources. Astrology sources are more likely to write about astrology topics than other sources, so it seems reasonable for Wikipedia to harvest source information from Astrology sources. If an Astrology source reports that Deborah Houlding was born 14 May 1962, that is not an opinion merely because the source is an Astrology source. Also, even though astrology is not factually true, it can be written about in an encyclopedic way that does not convey it as being factually true. The problem comes in that those who are into astrology believe that it is factually true and may end up writing a Wikipedia article with a factually true tone or in a way that links its credibility to disciplines with true credibility . The article now includes phrases such as -- "German classics Professor," "presentations at academic institutions," "ancient history scholars," "literary historians," "other disciplines"[6] -- which gives the impression that Deborah Houlding's astrology work sits just below E = mc² as far as importance to the World. To maintain the proper context, each of these needs to be removed from the article or limited to applying to astrology-only, as in: "German astrology classics Professor," "presentations at astrology academic institutions," "ancient astrology history scholars," "astrology literary historians," "other pseudoscience disciplines". -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uzma Gama - I take your point and have reduced the academic tone and removed the terms. They arose in response to requests from the editors proposing deletion for lack of evidence of notability from reliable sources who are outside the field of astrology. Now these can be provided by the sources. Kooky2 (talk) 16:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC) <edited>[reply]

Also, these academics: historians and theologians are discussing Houlding's research into ancient history and there is no connection with the validity in the practice of astrology. Kooky2 (talk) 17:51, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm beginning to see IRWolfie's point about astrology reliable sources. Astrology reliable sources themselves write in terms of "presentations at academic institutions," "ancient history scholars," "literary historians," "other disciplines" and other scientific views in an effort to present astrology on an equal scientific level as chemistry, physics, etc. and to sell their publications to those interested in astrology, who do not want to read articles written with a pseudoscience view or article that present astrology on a scientific level that is less than equal to the scientific level of chemistry, physics, etc. In Wikipedia, this creates two problems:

• 1. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be a representative survey of the relevant literature. If astrology sources can be Wikipedia reliable sources, then a Wikipedia editor reasonable could think that Wikipedia astrology articles can be written in scientific terms because that would reflect a survey of the relevant astrology literature.
• 2. Wikipedian editors who follow/believe in astrology and science behind astrology are the ones most likely to contribute to Wikipedia astrology articles. They probably won't see anything wrong with writing Wikipedia astrology articles in scientific terms because that is their understanding of the topic.

Wikipedian editors in good standing use their genuine belief in the science behind astrology to write a Wikipedia article that faithfully reflects a survey of the relevant astrology literature. That pits them against the general acceptance of astrology as being pseudoscience, which leads to content conflicts in Wikipedia. I think Astrology reliable sources can be used in Wikipedia, see WP:PSCI, but the person using them has to (1) avoid bringing into Wikipedia the scientific view in those sources (2) while capturing what the sources say (3) in a way that does not insult those who believe in astrology and (4) yet conveys the topic in an encyclopedic manner. That's not an easy thing to do.

I created Template:Cleanup-astrology as a first step to address the above issue. I think it is a better start than an outright ban on astrology reliable sources. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 02:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In view of your suggestions those terms have been deleted and the bare facts reported. Editing this kind of biography is not easy when some editors believe that all information from all fringe sources is not reliable and that most reliable sources verifying anyone associated with fringe beliefs are not acceptable. Kooky2 (talk) 07:20, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The bare facts? You are adding original research and you are synthesising sources to arrive at original conclusions not present in the sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:57, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The extent to which you are pushing your anti-astrology agenda is getting ridiculous. In this brief biography there are no less than 26 references which qualify every point made in the text. If you think there is OR, then the onus is on you to explain your concern properly on the talk page; not here - this is a deletion discussion. Use that talk page to engage with others editors. I see nothing on the page that is not reliably reporting what the independent sources say. Explain your editorial concerns and engage in the process of making the page as good as it can be. Don't just keep tagging the article, as you have been doing, with any tag you can find to try to make the entry appear to lack credibility whilst the deletion discussion you have proposed is being discussed. You proposed this - now stand back and let other editors evaluate, discuss and come to consensus Minerva20 (talk) 11:56, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Show the reference which supports "her research into the history of astrology has attracted notice and critical interest outside the field of astrology as well as within" and which does not engage in original analysis of sources or synthesis. Quote the specific text. I find it funny that you don't want people to add tags, but you reverted efforts by someone else to improve the article. I'm tagging the article to bring attention to the severe issues which have been introduced to the article over the course of this AfD (examples of which I have stated on the talk page). The article has been stuffed with puffery to make the topic appear notable. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:19, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is why Astrology sources are only reliable for the opinion of astrologers, they misrepresent the standing of astrologers in the world at large. They further aren't reliable for basic statements of fact; The mountain astrologer website says that according to greek myth "Ophiuchus" holds a serpent. The serpenth "represents the Kundalini and the double helix of the DNA". The double helix of DNA wasn't discovered until the 50s. They aren't reliable for what they say about non-astrologers, they aren't reliable for what they say about basic facts. They have no reputation for fact checking. How can they be reliable for describing astrologers when they exaggerate their status and make mistakes with basic facts. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:20, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The mere fact that Houlding is mainly notable (but not exclusively) due to her association to a fringe theory should not diminish her notability. The Astrological Association is a major player in the astrological world and therefore any award by that organisation must have some credidibility. Any key player in any field, regardless of the acceptability or credibility of that field, is notable. Her notability is further demonstrated when she was featured, as editor of the Traditional Astrologer Magazine, in the BBC 'Everyman' program: 'Twinkle, Twinkle, An Illustrated History of Astrology'. This was broadcast on the BBC on 25 May 1997 and has been repeated since on other networks, such as ABC TV in Australia. The synopsis of the program is "Documentary tracing the history of astrology, discussing the relationship between astrology and religion."

Terry Macro (talk) 01:38, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merely being on a TV show doesn't add to notability. The coverage of Houlding as the focus needs to be significant, and it has to be usable in the article. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:22, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, she is not an academic, and therefore is not notable as an academic, and I do not see how she is notable according to WP:GNG since she is only known in a narrow circle, as demonstrated in the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:18, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Biased canvassing by the proposer

This deletion discussion should be stopped due to the biased canvassing of the proposer. Whilst it is acceptable to place notices in appropriate boards, any notice should be be polite and neutrally worded (WP:CAN). It is innapropriate for them to introduce negative, biased opinion in a discussion board which attracts many editors who are hostile to the subject interests of the person featured on the page. Subsequent to his canvassing post, a member of that board has removed a lot of the reliably referenced material without good reason or discussion, (I have reverted once but will not engage in edit-warring); and a new vote has been added to support his deletion proposal, from an editor who has clearly not read the points already made above. This is vote-stacking, in a discussion which quite clearly did not find consensus and ought to have been closed as a keep some days ago. And this is on top of his earlier attempts to force this proposal through; such as changing the wording of applicable policies without discussion or consensus Minerva20 (talk) 12:29, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Undue material was added about a person related to a fringe theory. I notified people at the Fringe theories noticeboard about this undue and puffery material. I did not mention this AfD. What is your issue? Vote stacking? About 4 astrologers have appeared on this page to vote and you accuse me of vote stacking? Please. Material was removed because it wasn't reliably sourced and was just added during the AfD. If you had more than 11 mainspace edits, perhaps you would have a greater understanding about the issues with RS, OR, FRINGE and NPOV. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:39, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I read the previous discussion, and I happen to have 1000 times more contributions to English Wikipedia than you had prior to this discussion. I gave my opinion based on Wikipedia policies. I am not going to discuss the policies with single-purpose accounts.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]