Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kabbalistic Palmistry

:{{la|Kabbalistic Palmistry}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Kabbalistic Palmistry}})

Not entirely coherent or complete text dropped here as one of only two contributions by the editor. GBooks search returns exactly one hit, a 2008 book. Regular google returns more but almost entirely from blogs and the like. Notability is at the least highly questionable, and in any case it appears impossible to rescue the article using reliable sources. As far as I know even Hermetic Qabalah has no use for this sort of fortune telling. Mangoe (talk) 21:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
• Merge or Delete. If there is any good content in this article it should be merged, as a subsection, in to Palmistry.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 13:18, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge and Redirect to the main Palmistry article. The nominator obviously lacks a deeper insight into this subject, and the mere fact that there is a full-blown article about Palmistry on Wikipedia disproves him. This is not just about "fortune telling" per se, it's about an esoteric practice. Googling for [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=792&bih=425&q=Judaism+Palmistry&btnG=Google+Search#sclient=psy&hl=en&biw=792&bih=425&q=%22jewish+palmistry%22&aq=&aqi=&aql=f&oq=&pbx=1&fp=ac5229e2e8efe107 "Jewish Palmistry"] yields some good sources from palm reading sites, so obviously this is a genuine, albeit esoteric topic. No need to wipe it out because it sounds unfamiliar. IZAK (talk) 05:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

::Palmistry is also thin on the ground in sourcing, but I have confidence that this could be overcome. In the case of the present article I have no such confidence; it's not even clear that the content would end up having anything to do with palmistry. I'm not adverse to someone writing an article if that person comes up with sources, but what we have now is written on the authority of a single person with no references to tell me that the subject is even legitimate, much less to back up the specific claims. If you can do better, the article awaits you. Mangoe (talk) 11:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

:::Hi Mangoe, seems you just don't like the topic, and kindly note that WP:IDONTLIKEIT is no reason to delete. Far better to put various "under construction" templates on this page per {{tl|Citation needed}}, or "needs expert input" per template {{tl|Expert-verify}}, as well as noting WP:DONOTDEMOLISH. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 03:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

• Further comment A bit of further research discloses some references to chiromancy in Jewish culture; these references, however, have not identified the practice with the Zohar of other works of its period or tradition. If someone wanted to write chiromancy in Jewish culture or some such article, it's clear that it could be written at least as a stub. Mangoe (talk) 11:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
• Hi Mangoe. Let's not get carried away. The topic under discussion is the Jewish view of Palmistry via the Kabbalah. IZAK (talk) 02:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
• Look, if you can write it, then do so. If we delete this article and then someone writes one that actually has a place in an encyclopedia, that's fine. The problem at the moment is that even if the subject is legitimate (of which I have yet to be convinced, and the way to do that is to produce at least some article that I can identify as representing the subject even vaguely accurately) I don't see anything better to do with the material we ahve now than to toss it and start over. Mangoe (talk) 04:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
• Hi Mangoe: I have a different approach to such things. My solution in this case would be either to trim it down and make it into an acceptable stub if the material is too "abstract" so to speak, or to contract it and add it as a sub-section in the main Palmistry article. It's a tough subject, but as I have pointed out it exists and should not be lost. As you know re-starting deleted topics is an extra hurdle for article writers. There is no point of threatening me or getting impatient as that achieves nothing. I have started working on it by Wikifying it, but it still needs work. If I were you what I would have done is first started a dialogue with some some editors at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism, gotten some feedback and seen if some good can come of this article. Instead all you are doing is exhibiting impatience and frustration, virtually "ordering" me to work on it "or else" and alleging that this is a non-subject when you don't strike me as being an expert about such topics. So try practicing some WP:CALM and take it from there. IZAK (talk) 06:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
• Keep and improve. I spent 20 minutes with [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=active&biw=792&bih=425&tbs=bks%3A1&q=kabbalistic+palmistry&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq= Google Books] and came up with a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kabbalistic_Palmistry&diff=412514769&oldid=412461543 list] of English-language sources which discuss Kabbalistic Palmistry as described in the Zohar. I'm sure there are more in Hebrew for those who can translate. The article needs a good copy-edit and additional research work, but the subject is valid and should be kept as a page. Yoninah (talk) 11:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect to a subsection of Palmistry. Build up content there using independent scholarly sources that report the subject rather than fringe sources that promote it (such as Rosemary Guiley). - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:26, 7 February 2011 (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.