Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/People with an Aquarius sun sign

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 all articles. - Mailer Diablo 02:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The logical conclusion to this list is to have 12 lists, one for each sign, which combine to include every single person who has a page on wikipedia. My personal feeling is that this is a bit exessive, the lists will grow way out of control, and that a list like this isn't really necesarry anyway. Keep in mind that birthdates are already covered under dates. For example, February_7 mentions that Charles Dickens was born that day, so there's no need to aggregate all of these people intro astrological signs. --Bachrach44 17:14, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I fully agree with Bachrach44 --Neigel von Teighen 17:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. these are lists, not categories. users who don t like them can simply ignore them. other users interested in western astrology will find these infinitely more referable than looking up separate lists for each day - here people of the same sun sign ll be all in one list. -Mayumashu 17:27, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• That's a bad argument, though. Don't like vanity? Just ignore them! Don't like hoaxes? Just ignore them! Don't like vandalism? Just ignore them! Delete for being unencyclopedicApostrophe 20:02, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

if you don t like sports, delete it, if you don t like music, delete it - the counterargument to this in its extreme is as foolish too. my point was different (i admit unexplained). if these lists are in category form, people will say they are not important enough to warrant cats since the cat name would appear on every person page and that is far less ignorable. people without interest in this topic don t have to visit these pages, and in that way they are ignorable. whatever - the matter does boil down to if people consider these cats encyclopedic or not, as you mention as well. i think they are, every other user to vote here thus far feels they are not (more by gut reaction (this is non-science, superstition) than logical argument (this is of passing interest to many - has a worldwide audience as interesting trivia; and it isn t vanity). encyclopedicness is in drawing a line in the grey zone importance - what s important to any of us will vary). -Mayumashu 05:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• note:AFD nomination was done with just People with an Aquarius sun sign. After that I noticed several other similar pages and decided to combine them for the sake of simplicity. Vote is still Delete. --Bachrach44 17:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. While it may be relevant to note someone's sign in an article about them, these lists are not encylopedic. Cmadler 17:46, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I looked at some of these pages and they have very few entries so they are not usable as they stand. If the creator wishes to compile more comprehensive lists before submitting them, they might be considered useful for those researchers who want to compare character traits, as I am not aware of any other way of finding lists of people by birthdate on Wikipedia (though I'm sure there will be something similar somewhere on the Web, in which case why go to the trouble of duplicating it?). The Astrological Association certainly has data of this sort. Actually, lists of people by birthdate would be more useful and more manageable than by sun sign. In any case, if someone is born around the 18th-22nd of the month, it is impossible to be sure of their sun sign without some complicated calculations, and knowing their time of birth as well. I trust the compiler realizes this. --Shantavira 19:27, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

the ideas are to have the lists as any page expand gradually over time. people with birthdays from the 18 to 22 could be treated with asteriks until they re properly calculated signs were determined. no sight on the net has compiled a list as long as there can potential be. -Mayumashu 05:12, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not useful. Quite frankly, a list like that would go on forever in theory, taking up way too much space for an issue only a few care about. Coolgamer 19:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• This is the dawning of the age of delete allious. A textbook category situation at best, as a list offers nothing in this situation that a category doesn't. And, frankly, I think they'd be pretty stupid categories regardless. Lord Bob 20:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'd like to register a similar voice to everyone else. These would make categories rather than lists. STUPID categories, but categories nontheless. Mo0[talk] 21:48, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per Bachrach44. --Edcolins 22:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete While an article on astrology might be appropriate, this is definitely not encyclopedic. Users wishing this info should hit the New Age section of their favorite bookstore. Denni ☯ 02:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- it is one thing to describe obsolete thinking and/or pseudoscience. It is entirely a different matter to espouse it in an encyclopedia. Haikupoet 04:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. I have no problem with articles on astrology, but this is just silly. It can be deduced from their birthdates. User:Zoe|^(talk) 05:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

but the point again there is that birthdates are on separate pages and in chronological order. these lists would be on one page and in alphabetical order, far more referable. -Mayumashu 05:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This needs to go. Eusebeus 07:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. per Eusebeus.--Dakota ^{t e} 07:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Here are my reasons:

1. It's extra work for people (like me) categorizing bio articles to look that up. Especially since, unlike birth-death-nationality it's not apparent. You have to go look up the sun sign based on the date.
2. It's trivia.
3. Even if you believe in Astrology, a person's sun sign tells you nothing useful. You have to run a chart.
4. It would be basically only the fourth category that would apply to everyone (after birth-death-nationality). It's just a huge amount of data and work. Maybe a bot could do the work, I don't know. But still.
5. I'm not super enthusiastic about seeming to endorse superstition. Herostratus 20:33, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, nobody's that interested in astrology are they? Categories are sufficient. Stifle 00:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-encyclopedic. Jtmichcock 02:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. Pavel Vozenilek 22:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Martg76 20:09, 10 December 2005 (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.