Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BG Astrological Association

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 ~ trialsanderrors 06:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BG Astrological Association

BG Astrological Association (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Proposed deletion contested by author. Original reason: lack of content. Article now has more content, though still doesn't seem to assert important or significance, and is worded like an advertisement. – Gurch 01:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

  • delete Hard to tell, since it is a foreign organization and this google search turns up only Bulgarin language sites (though onle 2 of them!!!) and this similar search using the actual name of the article turns up NADA. If there were MORE references to notability, I might vote keep, but I cannot find ANYTHING out there to help this article out. --Jayron32 04:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete judging by the article, serious lack of notability. ViridaeTalk 11:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - This article is easily superior to the slight stub about the American Federation of Astrologers. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Do not delete. I cannot understand why this article is here. I have just post some text and what to see: This article is being considered for deletion. Is here some kind of discrimination? Look Here: UK Astrological Association and here: American Federation of Astrologers Are this two articles better then this one: BG Astrological Association Astrologbg 17:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)=Astrologbg
  • Delete. It's not the quality of the article that's in question (it certainly isn't as bad as the UK AA). It's the notability of the organisation. On that question: exactly 4 google hits from less than 4 different sites, even counting very similar results as separate; no apparent third-party coverage. Not an encyclopedic subject at present. Sam Clark 18:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Astrological association is astrological asociacition, no matter where it is - in Bulgaria or in UK. There is more than 80 results i this [google search]. - Bulgarian astrological association, but in bulgarian language. I am sorry, but how many of you know bulgarian? I think that Wikipedia is the right place, where people can learn something about this organization, in english. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Astrologbg (talk • contribs)
    • Comment. 1. Please sign your posts using four tildes. 2. 80 ghits doesn't add up to notability either. 3. 'Astrological association is astrological asociacition, no matter where it is' is not an argument for keeping the article, or even a reply to anything I or anyone has said. The issues are notability and verifiability. I'm sure the organisation is a fine one, but that doesn't have anything to do with whether it should have a wikipedia article. 4. You're quite right that I speak no Bulgarian, but that isn't an argument for keeping this article. 5. Am I right that your username indicates a connection with the organisation? If so, that also raises the problem of conflict of interest. Yours, Sam Clark 20:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
    • thanks for your comment. yes, I am from Bulgaria, and that is why I know something about this organization. In Wiki has an article Astrological associations and there was only one link who redirect to UK Astrological asociaction. Now there is two articles. And must have many more. And I dont understand why someone want in this article Astrological associations to have only ONE organization - UK. And I think that this is not right. Astrologbg 21:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)Astrologbg
  • reply to Astrologbg 1) before you assume people are descriminating against you, please read the following policy: assume good faith. Do so by clicking on the blue link. Understand that we are discussing this deletion proposal dispassionately and without prejudice. 2) At issue is not the existance of the association, its nature, why it exists, or even what it does. None of those are criteria for the worthiness of the article. We need references in reliable sources to show that the article contains information that is verifiable and that the subject matter is notable. I have linked words in this reply to specific wikipedia policies by which we are judging this article. If you wish to keep the article, improve it, and I and probably many others would be willing to change our vote. 3) The existance of other deletable articles at wikipedia do NOT mean that this one should be kept. If, in your exploration of wikipedia, you have found other articles YOU think are unworthy, please nominate them for deletion. But the existance of such articles has no bearing on this one. Bring it up to standard as is spelled out in the above policies, or let it go. 4) The existance of other articles about similar associations articles here means nothing. They may also be deletable, or they may have reliable references to the information they contain. Understand that deleting an article has NOTHING to do with what the article is about, only with whether the information contained therin is notable, verifiable, and reliable. Please click the polices I have linked to learn more so you can make the article better. --Jayron32 21:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. WMMartin 16:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - astrology is bilge, but this is a reasonable and well-constructed article about an organisation that peddles bilge. Pete Fenelon 00:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
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.