Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psychodiagnostic Chirology

From 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 delete, original research in an ad pamphlet form. No comment on whether another article could be written about the same subject, since many of the commenters feel like a rewritten article about it could be useful. - Bobet 11:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Psychodiagnostic Chirology

Psychodiagnostic Chirology (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Quite a strange article, I find it almost incomprehensible, it's possibly vanity, of an uncertain copyright status, and it might be original research. Was changed to a redirect, but might be better just abandoned until some specific purpose to the article could be shown....... Petesmiles 00:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Only 2,940 Google hits, the practice isn't notable enough to merit inclusion. - PoliticalJunkie 01:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. The ideas in the article are true, as far as I can tell. Just because it isn't immensely popular on the internet doesn't mean it isn't verifiable or notable. Some rewriting may be in order to put the article in a more easy-to-read language, but the article should be improved rather than deleted. The fact that it is odd (which I agree with completely) doesn't solely mean it should be deleted. I say, just give it time. --Kevin (TALK)(MUSIC) 03:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • very weak keep Whether the ideas in the article are true has nothing to do with this discussion. To me, it seems like an excuse to give a scientific veneer to palm-reading. But 3000 ghits is enough for pseudoscience (or popular psychology, whatever), unless all of them are blogs--which seems possible . This is an essay, not an article, and needs to be rewritten, and also must have some third party sources to show notability outside the blogosphere. . Otherwise, delete. DGG 05:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • keep It seems pretty unscientific to me, but that doesn't really matter. It's the subject of enough discussion and published material to make it notable. Obviously this article needs to be rewritten and sourced, but not deleted. Feeeshboy 06:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable enough to be verifiable - but it needs to be rewritten. -- Chairman S. Talk Contribs 10:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge - along the lines of Petesmiles above. Vanity publishing and original research going on here, an academic essay with lots of refs. Also the talk page promises: "More articles under this topic will be published by the publisher of the Psychodiagnostic Chirology magazine Dr. Henryk Rostowicz and the editors Mr. Eran Marese and Mrs. Judith Rostowicz". The user is Henryk Rostowicz by the way. Is the pedia a publishing venue since I last looked? Perhaps just a note under Chirology or Chiromancy to indicate the contribution and scrap the article itself until it finds its specific purpose. Julia Rossi 03:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment - It seems to me that the basis of many of the keep voters is a quick look at google, followed by an argument along the lines of '..It's the subject of enough discussion and published material to make it notable. Obviously this article needs to be rewritten..' to quote Freshboy. I think we should try and discuss the article that's been written, not the subject itself. I would take the 'obviously needs to be rewritten' bit to mean that this article is not up to scratch at the mo. and given that it hasn't been rewritten, p'raps that's really a sensible reason to delete it? Just a thought.... Petesmiles 22:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

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.