Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Astra Planeta

Add links
Source: 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 Keep. Strong consensus, retracting deletion proposal. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!

discuss 14:54, 10 November 2023 (UTC)‎[reply
]

Astra Planeta

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Astra Planeta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to be a

discuss 13:32, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Do any of your sources mention the term astra planeta outright? The sources you've added don't seem to, and it appears you're rewriting the classical planet article now. We discussed deleting it before you began the rewrite specifically because the term itself doesn't make sense and because it appears to be a creation of the admin of theoi.com. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!
discuss 00:12, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
The title is nonsensical, probably because the article was written without the aid of reliable sources. It can easily be moved to a more appropriate title, and should be—I meant to rewrite and source what I could before moving it, to better justify deprodding the article this morning. Unfortunately, the article was hastily nominated for deletion after I deprodded it, and before I could revise more than the lead section. AfD is not a substitute for a discussion about the article title.
I believe you'll find that this does not duplicate the contents of "classical planet". That's a broad article that discusses the general awareness of the seven planets (including the sun and moon) in various cultures throughout history, barely touching on the knowledge or suppositions of Greek and Roman astronomers, and consisting primarily of tables showing their names in the ancient near east, and cultural/astrological associations from medieval Europe to the present—including astrological symbols, the names of days of the week, and alchemical associations.
This article narrowly focuses on the planets as understood and described by Greek and Roman astronomers, and barely touches on astrology, leaving all of the other topics for "classical planets". Thus far I've really just mined one detailed source, and checked some of the Greek writers it cited specifically enough to cite directly. Other sources are certainly available; I haven't checked Harper's, which sometimes duplicates the structure of articles in the DGRA with variably greater or lesser detail; but there may be further material worth including in the DGRBM under the deities or the writers cited in the DGRA article. It's also likely that modern astronomical sources would be good to cite, at least to compare the Greek observations with current knowledge; but I didn't have time to do that. If someone reads German well, I'm sure some useful details can be found in PW. P Aculeius (talk) 00:31, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And, I've now moved it to what seemed like the obvious title, so where "astra planeta" came from and whether it can be supported by any good source seems like a moot point. P Aculeius (talk) 00:34, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. The article adds nothing to the already existing Classical planet article, unless you count (A) a phony Latin title, and (B) the unsourced notion that these five particular planets were treated as members of a different class than the other two planets. Rwflammang (talk) 21:23, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The title should no longer be an issue—after spending much of the day rewriting this article, I've moved it to a more appropriate title supported by reliable secondary sources. It does indeed add a great deal that isn't covered by "classical planet", and would be out of place there. Merely because this article could fall under the same scope doesn't mean that it should be merged into it, given that most of that article concerns anything but the discussions and suppositions of Greek and Roman astronomers. There's no good reason to combine the contents of this article with tables showing the names of the planets in various near eastern cultures, the names of days of the week in European cultures, astrological symbols, association with alchemical materials, and soforth. As for the notion that the first five planets were treated differently than the sun and moon, that is both discussed and sourced in the article as it now stands; some scholars did regard them as another type of thing, others didn't. It's a minor point, and really not relevant to AfD. P Aculeius (talk) 00:39, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect it seems this article is not really related to the original Astra Planeta article now buy something different entirely. It was originally proposed for deletion because the term was a
discuss 01:09, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Reviewing the article last night and this morning, I decided to look for more information before deciding whether the article should be deleted or not. I didn't find the individual names listed separately in the DGRBM, but I did find all of them listed in the "Planetae" article in the DGRG—which said a great deal of what was in the article already, but more clearly and without a lot of the fluff that probably originated at Theoi.com or whatever sources were consulted by that site's authors.
It seemed apparent to me that the "Planetae" article was about the same subject, just much better and more scholarly. What was called for was to rewrite/replace the messy, unsourced paragraphs with something coherent and organized. But I think it's still the same subject; I don't know where the title "astra planeta" came from, but it's probably just a misunderstanding of something said in a source like the one I used to restructure the article today. I wouldn't be surprised if it turns up in a valid source eventually, although it doesn't seem to be the best or most widely-used name for the subject.
And technically we don't have to wait for anything—the nominator could choose to withdraw the AfD nomination. But it's not a huge deal if it sits here for a week, as long as we're not still fighting about neologisms and hoaxes—it was always a valid subject, just based on a poor source and badly confused under a name that obviously isn't ideal. But valid articles created under bad names are nothing new, and the way to deal with them is by moving them to better names—or if there's disagreement about what the name should be, then a talk page discussion. In this case, the best name seemed obvious, and it wasn't already occupied by another article. There's no advantage to be gained by dynamiting the article, just so that nobody can ever see what it originally looked like. Nobody's harmed because some previous version of an article that was poorly written and sourced is still archived somewhere—even if it's deleted, there's still an archive, just not one visible to or accessible by most editors. And as poorly written as it was, the previous version doesn't need to be hidden away. P Aculeius (talk) 03:32, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The name "astra planeta" is almost certainly a botched translation of "wandering star" by a neopagn who doesn't understand Latin. As I've mentioned, it does occur in some scholarly sources -- but these sources seem to have used theoi.com and the Wikipedia page.
As to whether I can withdraw the AfD -- I actually can't, so long as there are "delete" votes. So @
discuss 09:54, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Consider my vote stricken. I can't really recall how to do that formally. Rwflammang (talk) 13:56, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you have obviated both of my objections, (A) and (B), and added quite a bit of information to boot. Issues involving any potential merges or name changes should be discussed seperately, i.e. elsewhere. I am sorry that your rather outside-the-box solution to these problems caught me unaware. Rwflammang (talk) 02:27, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Due to the work of P Aculeius this article is well worth keeping. I don't see any problems with it being separate to Classical planet, as that article seems to be different in content and scope. To what degree this actually constitutes a "keep" of the "Astra planeta" article is debatable, as the current article is no longer really about the same topic, the supposed group of mythological personifications who are children of Eos and Astraeus (an invention of Theoi.com). The original article should have been deleted, but with the recent changes it now covers a genuine encyclopedic topic, and there is no reason for this current article to be removed. – Michael Aurel (talk) 01:00, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this new
discuss 01:13, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
The subject of the article as it stood before I started working on salvaging it seemed to be the same as the current subject of the article. It was just buried in a mess of disorganized and unsourced details, some of which seemed random or improbable—additions to the basic topic from Theoi.com or somewhere else. But the core of the article was always the five (or seven, or ten) planets discussed in Greek and Roman sources, so I don't think it's relevant that the old title was potentially a neologism (we don't know for sure, and the point is moot now).
A hoax would be if the subject were made up out of thin air, or if the authors made up the details as they went along. But the subject clearly wasn't made up, and if the details came from a poor source, that still doesn't make it a hoax. The solution was to replace poorly-sourced and slightly incoherent or nonsensical material with what scholarly sources had to say on the topic. It doesn't matter that the previous fluff is still part of the article history; if poorly-sourced, unsourced, incorrect, or incoherent points made on Wikipedia rendered articles forever contaminated, we wouldn't have an encyclopedia at all. We don't need to cover up poor research; the goal is to improve the encyclopedia, not hunt down and erase heresy. P Aculeius (talk) 03:32, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I believe Wikipedia has a duty to "cover up" poor research if it is misleading and I believe that our article has misled a number of people, even in scholarly and academic publications. Put simply, there is no such thing as the "astra planeta" and we should no give any currency to such an idea. Here I'm concerned about the redirect, rather than the Planetae article which is undoubtedly worth keeping. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!
discuss 10:01, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Since no articles link to the redirect, I've deleted it. Paul August ☎ 14:25, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Great, and it looks like @
discuss 14:48, 10 November 2023 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Astra_Planeta&oldid=1184457550"