Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Astrobionomy
- 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 - but it was already blanked by the author and then deleted by another sysop. Bearian (talk) 16:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Astrobionomy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article shows bias and violates policies WP:NPOV as well as WP:OR. Article was initially nominated for WP:PROD and seconded. During PROD time, also nominated for WP:SPEEDY G1 because edits were rapidly running the article into complete gibberish and nonsense. PROD and SPEEDY were contested, so here we are. Paul McDonald (talk) 14:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Random bits about astrology influencing biology (or "bionomy") do not an article make, leavened with personal reflection and speculation. Weblinks to "astrobionomy" appear to have all been created by the article author. No indication that the term enjoys any actual use. The article skirts nonsense, but only barely. Acroterion (talk) 14:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as OR. A made up word.—RJH (talk) 16:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Different sun sign have been linked with different psychological traits. Modern astrological predictions about human psychological traits are based on astronomical predispositions. Psychology has biochemical basis. Astrology must have some biochemical manifestations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.96.99.186 (talk) 17:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Regardless, Wikipedia is not the place to be publishing original ideas that are not fully described and substantiated by existing publications. I would suggest moving the material to your own web site.—RJH (talk) 19:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Studying the article history, this appears to be an attempt to advance a new thesis via an original essay – a dubious synthesis using (and sometimes copying) sources of uncertain reliability. Online searches do not attest to a wider usage of the term outside of this essay, not even in pseudoscience. --Erik Lönnrot (talk) 13:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the article reads like a joke. Nergaal (talk) 22:01, 6 January 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.