Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geloscopy


 * 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 Redirect to Methods of divination. The one sentence of the article is already at the target article. If it's section at the target article is significantly expanded in the future, it can be split back off. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Geloscopy

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Article tagged as lacking sources since 2007. I failed to find anything meaningful beyond dicdefs Laudak (talk) 00:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, is this a significant practice? If sources can't be found, I don't know if it is, and it's definitely not notable.  Nyttend (talk) 01:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Methods of divination. GoogleScholar/GoogleBooks does find some mentions of it, but they seem to be of the one-line-within-a-list variety. That is already covered in Methods of divination. Redirects are cheap, and that's where anyone looking for this term should be sent. Lady  of  Shalott  01:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - perfectly serviceable stub, and plenty of GHits provide evidence of notability. (Here, here and here are possibly not great sources but a good starting place, and plenty of dictionary hits attest to it being not made up.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Plentyu of dic hits and nothing more means the item belongs to wiktionary. Laudak (talk) 22:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep the is plenty of reliable gnews, gbooks, and gscholar hits to source notability. (granted, half the books are on suffixes, but that still leaves a lot) UltraMagnusspeak 11:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge: Several hits on gscholar, doesn't seem to be a made up word and given the subject you don't expect 1000's of hits. This is probably an example of "notable but obscure" which AFAIK is a reasonable thing to put into an encyclopedia. The question is probably related to dictdef- is there enough material to expand this beyond a dictionary entry. If not, there may still be enough stuff to merge somewhere but someone would need to identify or propose a merge target. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 12:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I did in my comment above, but I'll repeat it: Methods of divination. Lady  of  Shalott  15:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool, but let'sw get some of those folks to comment, maybe propose on that talk page. I was on one of these that got stuck with probably a bad merge target... Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 18:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you look at the page I suggested as the target? The information is already there. It would not even be a merge, just a redirect. Lady  of  Shalott  04:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Nothing turning up in searches that establishes notability. Topic can be described in other article(s).   Diderot's   dreams  (talk) 04:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Google News search shows the New York Times and others mention what the word means, there a notable theater named after it. Click on Google Book search and you will find it getting plenty of coverage in books.  The article's subject is notable.   D r e a m Focus  03:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As I said above, I looked at a number of those book references, and none had more than the one line's worth that is already contained in Methods of divination. Did you find any more extensive coverage of the subject? Lady  of  Shalott  16:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The article can be expanded, listing notable places named after the word, and how it has been used in fiction, both in the extremely notable Harry Potter novels, as well as various vampire stories apparently.  D r e a m Focus  18:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.  —  Lady  of  Shalott  04:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The word is extremely rare. If it had a decent following there would be skeptical sites mocking its silliness; there isn't. TheThomas (talk) 15:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * How rare something is isn't a reason to delete. If it exist, and is mentioned in the news and books, then it meets all requirements to have an article.   D r e a m Focus  16:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. This type of divinity exists and is mentioned in numerous sources so it's notable. -- Pink  Bull  00:43, 12 November 2009 (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.