Talk:List of astrological organizations

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Astrology Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astrology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Astrology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AstrologyWikipedia:WikiProject AstrologyTemplate:WikiProject Astrologyastrology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

Criteria for inclusion in the list is notability

Contested deletion

I am nominating this article for speedy deletion. Reasons:

There is already a WP category page for it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Astrological_organizations
The article has no other content.
This page seems to be used only as a directory for promoting these organizations by giving external links.
It has been tagged with multiple issues for more than a year, and nothing has been done

MakeSense64 (talk) 11:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This page should not be speedy deleted because... a good variety of editors have contributed towards the content. The content is potentially very useful as a catalogue of reputable astrological associations, some of which have a very long history and have included notable memberships. I agree that it is does need attention and development. I will try to contribute some information myself and rasie a discussion about the need for this page to get more attention within the WikiProject Astrology discussion area --Zac Δ talk 21:10, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MakeSense64, your arguments hold no water. Rather than trying to make up arguments for achieving your POV, why not (1) cite relevant WP policy or (2) improve the page yourself? You cannot simply delete the page because you wish it so. In other words, try to be constructive and not destructive. Aquirata (talk) 01:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Zachariel. The criterion for including an article in WP is not 'usefulness' but 'notability' and 'verifiability'. A variety of editors having contributed is not relevant if their only contribution has been inserting external links to websites of organizations, WP is not a directory WP:NOT. There is already a category page leading to the individual WP articles about notable astrological organizations, so this page is redundant. What new independently verified content are you going to add, that is not already found in the articles about these notable astrological organizations? It will be better to have fewer astrology articles that are well maintained, rather than many articles that get never improved. This is one of the obvious candidates to remove because it has no content, no references, and nobody has improved it for over a year. Astrological organizations that are worth mentioning can be mentioned in a section on the article about astrology or astrologer. The information will be more 'useful' and get more readers on one of those pages. You can propose a merger if you think something on this page is worth keeping.

@Aquirata. I am not deleting the page, I am putting it up for deletion. That's often the quickest way to get an article improved or merged. It was tagged with multiple issues last year, yet nobody came out to be constructive as you suggest. Now I put it up for deletion and within a day two editors come out of the woods to defend this page and promise improvements. To nominate an article for deletion seems to be one of the most constructive things to do. MakeSense64 (talk) 06:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Improvement Suggestions

Looking through the history of the page, I believe the 'mulitple issues' tag was inserted by mistake in a revision made in March 21, 2011 following vandalism. The editor reverted to previous content but the original tag called for addition of categories. I don't believe it is necessary for this page to have references or more than an introductory sentance as its lede, although it obviously needs to be revised, updated and developed. It might be useful to have examples of similar pages, so that we can see what sort of standard we should be working for. I'm imagining something like the list of trade unions (link below), although I the sortable tabulated format of this page is better and should be continued.Zac Δ talk 08:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC) I'm also placing below the link to the style guide, which states "The list may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list. Examples would include lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists" (i.e., the value of the information does present criterion for inclusion). This page appears to adhere to the style convention for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:LIST#Association_.28definition.29_lists which is outlined on that page. Zac Δ talk 08:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a list article because the name of the page does not start with 'List of...' See WP:LISTNAME

Even if you change it to a list article you will have to clean up a lot. Generally a lot of Red links is not accepted, a few is OK. You will need to state the objective criteria for inclusion, so that other editors can add or remove entries in an unambiguous way. For red links you need an independant reliable source to justify its inclusion. WP:STANDALONE MakeSense64 (talk) 12:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Your constructive criticism is appreciated as I would like to ensure the information is valuable, robust and reliable. I'll give this some attention myself over the coming weeks and hopefully other editors will contribute too. I recognise that some links may need to go, but would like to check those organisations out first to see if they are indeed notable enough for inclusion. I have some views on criteria and a suitable lede but will see if anyone else wants to contribute thoughts on that first. One entry that struck me as being noticeable for its absense today was the Urania Trust, so I have created a WP entry for that organisation and will now add the details to the table. If you would like to review that entry please do. Zac Δ talk 13:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have just renamed and redirected the page to 'List of Astrological Associations' Zac Δ talk 14:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It will be better to remove the external links next to the names. It makes it look like a directory or a link farm, and WP doesn't like that. If you take a look on Lists of organizations you will see that most of them do not put external links in the list page. The links can be found on the WP page of each organization anyway. MakeSense64 (talk) 16:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the external links from those entries that currently have WP entries. There seems little point in directing the reader through to the site instead of the WP page where the external link can be found. I suggest we keep the external links to the organisations that are not featured on WP, but I will make these more discreet (will complete this tomorrow). This adds value for the reader and also gives us the practical advantage of being able to refer to the organisation's published information whilst deciding whether the organisation is suitable for inclusion. If it is, then I agree with Makesense64's view that the entry needs some kind of reference or justification for inclusion. But in principle it is fine for organisations to be listed even if they don't have a WP page - this is the differentiation between this list, and the one Makesense64 pointed to in his swift deletion suggestion: this is a more complete list because it includes reference to organisations which do not have WP pages, whereas the other list includes reference only to the organisations which are featured on Wikipedia Zac Δ talk 04:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria for inclusion

My suggestion for inclusion in the Global list is that the organisation is seen to hold notability within astrology and offer a global reach for its membership.

For the criteria that defines notability I suggest:

any organization that has been running for over 25 years automatically qualifies for inclusion
any organization whose professional certification programmes have reached the standard by which they are approved by the Advisory Panel on Astrological Education, which has strict criteria for inclusion (I will add this organisation to the list). There may an international advisory body of similar standing in America and Australia: if so this could be amended to include their approved certifying programmes.
any organisation which is notable for having a reliably referenced specialist focus.
any organisation which has a reliably referenced widespread influence or minimum 200 members.

With regard to the criteria for regional inclusion I believe the criteria can be relaxed to include any organisation that is operating at a regional level and seen to be active through reference to a Wikipedia page or a fully functioning external website.

Would anyone like to comment or make alternative suggestions? Zac Δ talk 07:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have made some alterations to the above to make the definitions more formal. If anyone wants to discuss please do. If there are no objections by next week I will define this to be current criteria for inclusion, add a detail about this to the main page and then remove the tag calling for references or sources. That all of the entries in the list meet the criteria above is easily established through the associated wikilinks or external references given, (I have checked each one, and it is not the normal practice for list items to be subject to the need for references and sources anyway).Zac Δ talk 06:09, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the light of no objection I have formalised the criteria above, appreciating that this can be made subject to revision upon further discussion. I will add a lede to the page and then remove the tag since the issues it calls attention to have now been addressed. Zac Δ talk 07:08, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Entries subject to dispute

The Cosmobiology Research Foundation

I am not familiar with this and there is no information I can find on the web except a website that is supposed to be under development but gives no information. I am not sure if the website is actually being developed, or whether it's been in that state for some time.

The Magi Society

This purports to be the worlds largest association of astrologers with 5000 members, but also claims it is emerging out of a secret society, and there is no information about its governing body. Memberships have to be made by personal telephone discussion.

I'm inclined to think that both entries should be removed unless or until there is reliably referenced information that can be linked to from the page. However, it may be that other editors know more about these organizations than I do, so I will raise this question on the Wiki:Project Astrology discussion page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zachariel (talk • contribs) 20:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Raman & Rajeswari Research Foundation

This was added yesterday but I have not been able to find independent verification that it is a registered trust, or that it is notable in a way that meets the criteria listed above. I have added a note to the IP user's talk page ad asked them to check here to add details to support the entry. In the meantime I'll delete it. Zac Δ talk 08:15, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]