- 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 of the debate was delete. Sango123 02:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article has insufficient context or references to establish notability. Prod removed by creator without comment, and without addressing these concerns. Delete--Ed (Edgar181) 00:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per one of my all-time favorite essays WP:HOLE BigDT 01:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I don't think this was intended as nonsense, but nevertheless, it is. Opabinia regalis 02:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, non-notable. --Terence Ong 03:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per now my favorite essay WP:HOLE —Mets501talk 06:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per nom. Dismas|(talk) 08:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete astrology... urge to kill... rising. I'm a bit biased on this subject, but there's nothing in this article to suggest notablity. Google just throws up some mentions on misc astrology sites. I suppose if he really was a "pioneer of modern stellar astrology" he might (spit) deserve an article given that astrology is a notable (spit) subject. But as it stands... just delete it. - Motor (talk) 10:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per Motor - astrology branch promoted by The Astrology Center of America. Peripitus (Talk) 12:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom & per parallel article on same subject, Advanced Stellar System --JennyRad 15:34, 11 June 2006 (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.