Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry Lavery


 * 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   no consensus. Whether a move is required is not for this forum, however. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Henry Lavery

 * – ( View AfD View log )


 * Delete: as non-notable. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 18:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Nomination is right out of "arguments not to make in a deletion discussion".  WP:Not notable says, "Simply stating that the subject of an article is not notable does not provide reasoning as to why the subject may not be notable."  Unscintillating (talk) 22:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Unscintillating -- let me expand my rationale. It appears to me that the subject is non-notable, failing, WP:N, WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 02:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Notable only for inventing the Psychograph, a pseudoscientific gadget of the early 20th century. Redirect if anyone writes an article about that notable hoax.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  21:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Move to Psychograph and keep the redirect, and (if no other edits are done) swap the first and second sentences and remove the header. Also, add Psychograph to the "See also:" list at Phrenology.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose "Move to Psychograph". Psychograph is already a redirect to Psychographic, although it appears to my layman's eyes (and I may be wrong), that they are not the same thing. Perhaps other editors, including Cullen328, can help sort it out. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk)  03:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, then move to Psychograph (phrenology). Unscintillating (talk) 03:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I apologize for my quick suggestion of what I thought would be a red link. I had to get back to work and didn't notice the incorrect link I suggested until later. Rms125a@hotmail.com is correct.  That redirect has nothing at all to do with Lavery's pseudoscientific "invention".  A new article about his gadget would be required.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  06:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Move as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:53, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Is this a deletion discussion, or a requested move? Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)    03:45, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep and possibly move to new title as suggested by Unscintillating. I have expanded the article and added references. His machine appears to have been quite notable during the 1930s and is credited with maintaining the popularity of phrenology in America. The Museum of Questionable Medical Devices has a working model of the machine on display which museum visitors can use. It could be argued that the machine is more notable than he is, and so the existing article could be reorganized slightly and moved to Psychograph (phrenology). --MelanieN (talk) 02:53, 10 October 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.