Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raymond Kertezc


 * 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   merge to Scientific control. Stifle (talk) 11:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Raymond Kertezc

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Kertezc is not a real person, but is a fake poet as part of a control question on a certain psychology test. I could not find any reliable sources about him, and being part of one out of 300+ questions on a test is far from notable, in my opinion. Kansan (talk) 23:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.  -- Danger (talk) 03:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge/Redirect to Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * While that might be the ideal outcome, unless we can source this, I'm not sure what there is worth merging. Kansan (talk) 13:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - This book specifically identities Raymond Kertezc as an example of a control question in the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. Merge is possible but the content as it stands would simply read like a trivia entry.  An actual sourced item about the controls built into the test would be needed as it currently does not exist in the article.  Simply redirecting is not useful as arriving there, the reader would still be at a complete loss as to why he or she has been presented with an article on the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory when they were looking for a guy named Raymond Kertezc.  For these reasons, I favour deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whpq (talk • contribs)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge taking this content, the source above, and making it into an appropriate target for the resultant redirect. Jclemens (talk) 23:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * As Whpq said, it would be trivia, unless it was explained as an example of a control question (but would that be particularly unique to this test? I would imagine many such tests have control questions.) Kansan (talk) 05:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - I can't find sufficient coverage in reliable sources to demonstrate notability, and I don't think this would add much to the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory article if merged. Robofish (talk) 01:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge to Scientific control. I agree, doesn't belong in a standalone article, and the content would be trivial at MMPI, but it fits nicely in the article above. No reason to delete sourced, verifiable content. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  01:36, 16 March 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.