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 and redirect to Cardiology. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:24, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cardology[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It's of course perfectly ok to have articles about pseudoscience. Indeed, informing readers of the actual facts is the primary purpose of Wikipedia. This, however, is a very new article about a very obscure pseudoscience topic (not the same thing as the other kind of playing card reading, Cartomancy apparently) and all of the sources are published by practitioners or adherents of this pseudoscience, as opposed to objective third-party sources. Unsurprisingly, the bulk of the sources are self-published books, but we also have the International Association of Cardology website, which explains that this is actually a quite ancient art, that was developed in Atlantis, kept secret for twenty thousand years by a secret society, and finally revealed to the world by some guy in Chicago decided the time was right in the 1890's.

I mean, whatever, but it appears not to have been the subject of multiple reports in independent reliable sources. It simply does not appear to be a particularly notable practice. Even if it were determined to be notable, this is not the article we should have about it, as it based only on primary sources that believe in this avowed "truly magical" practice. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:43, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~: It may even pass the threshold as a HOAX. As nom has indicated, it doesn't meet notability for articles about a hoax, either. While it'd be a good first idea to merge it with Cartomancy, there's barely anything to merge that's verifiable. WhoAteMyButter (📨_talk│📝^contribs) 06:21, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cardiology per JLAN. WhoAteMyButter (📨_talk│📝^contribs) 21:53, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Page has no independent (third-party) verifiable sources. N Does not comply with WP:V. Louie (talk) 00:42, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Alexf^(talk) 14:06, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I thought this was a definite delete per nom, but this Scholar search has made me think again. It seems that this is a plausible typo for "cardiology" – so plausible that even journals publishing in that field manage to make it. So:

Redirect to cardiology. Note: I did find one other use of this word, in the San Francisco Foghorn, Volume 36 Issue 6, dated 22 October 1948 (bottom of the page, right of centre). I've absolutely no glimmer of an idea what it's supposed to mean there, but it isn't this topic. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:50, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean Cartomancy? Cardiology is about the heart. WhoAteMyButter (📨_talk│📝^contribs) 00:22, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, WhoAteMyButter, I most certainly do not. I mean cardiology – see the Google Scholar search I linked above, where "cardology" is written but "cardiology" is meant. Closer: I've no objection to a Delete, then redirect close if that better reflects consensus here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:30, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Jlan. This is, indeed, a plausible typo for cardiology, i and o being adjacent on a standard keyboard.—S Marshall T/C 23:42, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For the record I have no objection to it being redirected, but would prefer "delete then recreate as a redirect". This just avoids ambiguity, while also eliminating the possibility of restoring the article by reverting. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:57, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per Beeblebrox's concerns. It is a plausible typo.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:46, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.