Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elongated human skulls


 * 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. I see nothing to suggest this discussion was unduly influenced by canvassing or any other unsavory goings-on. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 04:19, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Elongated human skulls

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Almost rising to the level of WP:NONSENSE, this article is essentially a Fortean romp through fringe ideas that have received zero coverage in mainstream independent sources. jps (talk) 17:23, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Much of this is, indeed, fringe foreana. Additionally, the main source for all of this is essentially self-published. Pretty much nothing published by Adventures Unlimited Press should be considered reliable for anything, but, here, the book is by Childress, who is also sole proprietor of the publishing house. A particularly generous closure might redirect to artificial cranial deformation instead, which is (although it needs cleaned up of the same junk material), the real article on the topic. I've culled the corresponding passage from Paracas culture; all these references were introduced simultaneously by a drive-by SPA editor back in June 2012. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:26, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge with artificial cranial deformation which is much the same topic. By coincidence, I was reading about the unusual skull shape of Akhenaten recently.  There's plenty to say about this topic and it's not nonsense.  See Artificial deformation of the human skull: a review, for example. WP:NONSENSE specifically excludes "poorly written content that can be improved" and so the nomination misrepresents the page.Warden (talk) 18:26, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't object to a redirect, as I noted, but none of Childress's material should be merged to the real topic (and what's there now needs to be edited out). Artificial cranial deformation is a real topic, with sociological and medical implications. Childress writes about ancient alien astronauts and conspiracy theories, and his books appear through his self-owned publishing house. And without Childress, there's simply nothing here. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Your claim is false. For example, the article in question references the work Peruvian Antiquities which long predates Childress.  Warden (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * As Squeamish Ossifrage's !vote had a knee-jerk quality, I checked and see that the nominator has canvassed here. Tsk. Warden (talk) 18:49, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, investigation of the bizarre account name of the nominator reveals that this is the editor formerly known as ScienceApologist. Sigh. Warden (talk) 19:00, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Patently false. I was not canvassed (I found this through AFD/T). Unfounded accusations of sockpuppetry are a personal attack; if you want to be disproven at SPI, you're welcome to take me there.  Otherwise, I urge you retract your statement, or I'll see you in dispute resolution.  My "bizarre username" is a reference to a very famous cryptotext. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:10, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The bizarre username to which I refer is "QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV". "Squeamish Ossifrage" is comparatively clear and I'm grateful for the entertaining account of its origin.  While we're at it, note that Colonel Warden has some precedent too. Warden (talk) 19:22, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, this article doesn't cite Rivero, it cites Childress citing Rivero (incorrectly). Exercising the proper caution due changing scholarship since the 1850s, nothing is preventing an editor from improving artificial cranial deformation with material from Antigüedades Peruanas (1851) or Peruvian Antiquities (1853, the translated and abridged version, which is available at the Internet Archive). But that doesn't make merging Childress's interpretations of the 19th century source any more acceptable to merge. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:15, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * That is not canvassing. AfDs for fringe stuff should be mentioned at FTN. Accusations of canvassing shouldn't be made on the basis of that notification - if you are concerned, go to ANI, don't just attack an editor here. Don't discuss editors here. And have you actually checked Peruvian Antiquities? Dougweller (talk) 19:11, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete the non-notable fringe stuff, and redirect to artificial cranial deformation. WegianWarrior (talk) 21:11, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:36, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:36, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. There is nothing in this WP:FRINGE WP:OR that is worth merging into artificial cranial deformation, which is the already-existing article on the subject. -- 101.119.14.136 (talk) 04:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - Since this is unsourced, there is nothing to merge with artificial cranial deformation. Content fork. Carrite (talk) 15:51, 20 November 2013 (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.