Deletion of Astrotheology

Comment: It is unclear if there is a real topic here, or whether this term has been used in the past with a well-understood shared meaning. Per Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms we are not supposed to create new terms or allow ourselves to get on the bandwagon of new coinages before they have general use. The article appears to contain |original research. I notice that a number of references are included that are here only because of the enthusiastic support of one particular editor. Since these are difficult historical matters, it would be good to have some kind of consensus beyond the views of one editor that these references are germane and prove what he says they prove
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: User|Koavf}}'s reason for AfD is not a reason for deletion. As stated in , "Disputes over page content are not dealt with by deleting the page." This is a discussion that needs to start on the article's relative discussion page. I think {{User|Garbage Collection}} put it concisely that it "would be a stub forever if there would be no mention to the film," and that's similar to what I thought when I added the mention of of the film -- strictly for reference to continue to expand the article, which there are many references (170) available from the film's website. I used the term myself even to describe to people about native american beliefs and paganism (which astrology alone doesn't cover). Part of the reason is stated as neologism, but that would mean that should shouldn't be on AfD but should be merged with another article. There is, however, no other article that I found that mixes astrology, astronomy, and religion in what astrotheology covers. I made a contribution to Wikipedia to help '''expand''' this article. I hate to see AfDs be used to prevent contributions. &mdash
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:DP)

Comment: close as  -- The article has been through several editions, found notability and no vote to merge, and has made the original commenter's votes null.  Keeping this AfD open is a witchhunt for merits while the article continuously is hit with POV edits, which has reverted many attempts to expand the article. This issue really belongs in the NPOV forum. &mdash
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: per . Only substantive source to date is ''Astrotheology and Shamanism'', which gives no indication that it is scholarly in content and is published by http://www.thebooktree.com/ Book Tree, which is self-decribed as a publisher of "controversial and educational products to help awaken the public to new ideas and information that would otherwise not be available" -- and clearly on the 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTE||WP:FRINGE)