Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brain lesion theory


 * 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:50, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Brain lesion theory

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

"Brain lesion theory" isn't a thing in Gbooks, Gscholar, or anywhere else. It's a pile of WP:OR. Here's a clue: the article opens The term Brain lesion theory is a colloquialism which generally refers to.... Seems to have started as someone's misinterpretation of a phrase seen somewhere. EEng 21:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 22:06, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 22:06, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete per the nomination's observation that it isn't a thing. The very first reference, upon which the article was originally based, is incorrectly included. While it's supposedly a book, it is actually a paper, and that paper does not mention brain lesions or a theory thereof. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 22:16, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kj cheetham (talk) 07:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  D My Son  04:54, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. First of all the phrase "brain lesion theory" is not in colloquial use as claimed in that first sentence.  Newspapers.com comes up zeroes on that phrase.  Note that one of the current Google hits refers to a "brain lesion theory" of dreaming, not aggression, which further undermines that exact phrase.  The title, the focus, and the first three paragraph begin to feel like Original Research.  The page history is interesting -- the original creation was slim but with a couple of references.  It was greatly expanded by another user, which is mostly what we're dealing with here.  Assuming good faith means assuming this is newly-written material although there's thick paragraphs of it.  It doesn't seem wrong.  It seems to track with responsible-looking stuff like this and this.  But the overall flow is more persuasive essay than a clear explanation of anything, and I'm just not sure about that chart at all, although I've stared at it a lot.  Anything worth saving might be summarized into the more complete and balanced Neurocriminology.  --Lockley (talk) 10:06, 22 July 2020 (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.