Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ideality (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) 07:15, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Ideality (phrenology)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

"No sources since 2004! we are not a dictionary" Roxy the dog. bark 18:01, 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) 19:17, 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/Destructiveness (phrenology), so I'm making the same comment there.) Bishonen &#124; talk 20:34, 27 September 2017 (UTC).
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:31, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:31, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: The following is the same text I posted at Articles for deletion/Destructiveness (phrenology). It applies equally to this article. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  21:31, 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.  21:31, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I've put it up for CSD as a copyright violation of . Source page says it was last updated in 1998, 6 years before this verbatim article existed. If, for some reason, the article survives the CSD, Delete - Because phrenology is clearly pseudoscience, we would need independent reliable sources discussing the topic to say anything about it. As the only sources I can find are in-universe, we really don't have anything to say about it. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 21:36, 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.