Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knee splitter


 * 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. clpo13(talk) 18:21, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Knee splitter

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is likely a hoax. Source is not trustworthy. There is not a single scholarly or historical source that mentions this device. It is similar to the "Spanish Tickler" which had similar sources and ended up being one of the longest lasting Wikipedia hoaxes. BananaBaron (talk) 03:32, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2018 July 14.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 04:00, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. This work and the earlier its 2012 predecessor quotes Innes 1998 and/or Kellaway 2002, and This source is from 2007. The ultimate source appears to be either Innes or The Torture Museum -- This shows it at the Museum back to at least 1999. This work explicitly dismisses Innes as "the least reliable recent source". The Museum also exhibits the chastity belt and the iron maiden and the pear of anguish, which makes their adherence to truth over sensation questionable, and I could find no real use of the terms "Spaccaginocchio" or "Quebranta Rodilla" via gbooks/scholar. this non-RS takes them apart. Even if the device shown at the museum did happen to be of genuine medieval origin, there's no indication that it has individual notability (rather than being an example of a putative instrument of torture). There's no in-depth coverage of it, but hypothetically if there were more ample reliable sources found prior to the 1990s, then merge/redirect to list would be best. There's nothing stopping an article on a sufficiently notable hoax, however. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 06:27, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:53, 14 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and H3O-OH. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 02:12, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I find a lot of things on the internet sharing "Historical methods of torture that you would not believe existed!" and many of them did not exist, but have now become sort of mainstream. Could an article for "Ahistorical methods of torture" be created for those? BananaBaron (talk) 04:58, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure, provided that reliable sources can be found to identify them as hoaxes (for example see iron maiden). I suspect that it would be better, however, to include both historical and ahistorical ones in separate lists on the same article to help spread explicitly identified good information and to keep the incorrect ones from being added to the historical ones. Spanish tickler, btw, appears to be another example for which the Museo di tortura may be responsible (1996..., ping,  ) ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 06:39, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * This is such a bizarre coincidence. I was reading The Better Angels of Our Nature last week, and of all things, it mentioned the Spanish Tickler - with, interestingly, an actual citation to a book older than the article. Unfortunately the book it referenced, Inquisition: A Bilingual Guide To The Exhibition Of Torture Instruments From The Middle Ages To The Industrial Age, wasn't available as an e-book, so I had to suck it up and order the actual book. Shipping is slow so the ETA isn't until late July-early August, but long story short I can check it once I get it for any information about the knee splitter. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 07:39, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Addendum: having a look at the Inquisition book, it looks like it may have been published by one of those torture museums that the www.documentazione.info source above debunks. The rabbit hole just gets deeper. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 07:55, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yup -- from the cover it's the book of (what is now) the museum's 1983-1987 touring exhibition.. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 08:58, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * What a waste of $15 >:C &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 21:02, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 07:43, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 07:43, 15 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete; no reliable sources. Whoever added the single source needs to learn how to evaluate websites for reliability, as this is some guy's personal website.  The article can be kept if we can find professional historians who have documented the topic, but it would need a complete rewrite.  Nyttend (talk) 02:45, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - even if it existed, mere existence does not make it notable. There is insufficient evidence this was a notabel device. Bearian (talk) 19:55, 16 July 2018 (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.