Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Destructiveness (phrenology)


 * 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 speedy delete. Speedy deleted by RHaworth, CSD G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:13, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Destructiveness (phrenology)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

"No sources since 2004! we are not a dictionary" Roxy the dog. bark 18:04, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thx Summer. looks like they may be all WP:COPYVIO I have just discovered anyway. theresnorush!!. -Roxy the dog. bark 19:08, 27 September 2017 (UTC)


 *  Delete  CSD - G12 - The deletion rationale here could use a bit of work. That there aren't any sources in the article is not an indication that there aren't sources available. That said, I don't want procedural quibbles to get in the way of improving the project.) Phrenology is pseudoscientific nonsense. As a result, notability here would hinge on significant coverage in independent reliable sources -- sources that are outside of the universe where the location and shapes of bumps on your skull are indicative of your personality. I have not been able to find any such sources. Yes, there are lots of current reliable sources independent of phrenology discussing "destructiveness", but they're not talking about phrenology. There are old reliable sources independent of phrenology discussing "destructiveness", but Erich Fromm isn't talking about phrenology either. To find anything about phrenology's "destructiveness", I have to go in-universe. Independent reliable sources simply have nothing about this detail of this pseudoscience. Given the parenthetical and limited discussion of the topic at Phrenology, I don't think this makes much sense as a redirect, but wouldn't oppose one if someone feels strongly about it. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 19:01, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I have now tagged this for speedy deletion as an apparent copyright violation of . - Sum mer PhD v2.0 21:53, 27 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep or temporarily delete as long as the page is not brought up to a proper standard. This page, and the others about Phrenology faculties, were created as stubs but never finished properly, still work in progress. They should be completed with references from reliable sources and illustrations. There remains much work to be done. LHOON (talk) 19:16, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. It seems absurd to create a stub lacking sources in 2004, do no further work on it, and now call it a "work in progress". Please define "progress". (LHOON has copypasted the comment above also at Articles for deletion/Ideality (phrenology), so I'm making the same comment there.) Bishonen &#124; talk 20:34, 27 September 2017 (UTC).
 * Delete Phrenology is nowhere near as widespread as it once was, and as a consequence, gets no real coverage in independent sources. Articles on individual concepts within phrenology are so unlikely to have gotten any coverage in RSes at all that I feel perfectly comfortable saying "there is no independent, reliable coverage" without even bothering to check. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  21:27, 27 September 2017 (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.