Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rhapsodomancy


 * 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The result was withdrawn by nominator after sources were found in the course of debate. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Rhapsodomancy

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable form of divination. Notwithstanding WP:RECENTISM only reference is encyclopaedaia from 1700s and as no inline citations no way of verifying content which is referenced. Simonm223 (talk) 18:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. If it's notable in the 1700s, it's notable today.  Basic searches will find the concept used by Cornelius Agrippa and referred to John Wesley, so even if this isn't a widely used method of divination there's plenty to back up the brief assertion from the 1700s encyclopedia.  - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Except, that's the problem, the only reference is for an out-of-print book, there is no in-line citations, there is no way to confirm that the term was in the encyclopaedia beyond your say-so.
 * The fact that something is not online does not make it an invalid source. You can't assume it was made up.--Milowent (talk) 21:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Lean Keep. Aside from finding sources exist in a quick google book search, this article appears to be one of a slew of articles on diferent "mancy"s.  Combining them would result in a huge, unwieldly article. --Milowent (talk) 21:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's in Britannica and appears to be present in at least two other scholarly references. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Withdrawn but can we please get at least an in-line citation?Simonm223 (talk) 01:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)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.