Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superficial charm


 * 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   keep. Valid academic terminology used for significant topics ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 22:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Superficial charm

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Not a notable topic, just a common two word expression. The article notes that some bad people have it, but that's because when good people have charm it is not superficial. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Extremely strong keep: This has to be the most ludicrous Afd I have ever come across. It has key academic importance. It is a key characteristic of psychopathy and some personality disorders. It is referenced in, for example, psychopathy, Hare Psychopathy Checklist, The Mask of Sanity, narcissism and Fictional portrayals of psychopaths. The other aspect of superficial charm, which I suspect the proposer has overlooked, is that it is one of the most common psychological manipulation techniques used by many people to encourage positive reinforcement. This side needs to be developed more in the article. For example, superficial charm is a very common technique used by salesmen, especially high-pressure salesmen and con artists. It is associated in some respects to flattery but superficial charm has a more specific meaning. i notice that "superficial charm" has 1,470 references in Google Scholar, 60,700 non-Wikipedia entries on Google in general (most of the time in its psychiatric context) so it is clearly notable and certainly not a nondescript expression.--Penbat (talk) 09:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Does the expression have a special meaning in psychology, beyond its everyday meaning?Steve Dufour (talk) 14:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Although "superficial" and "charm" are everyday words, i dont think that "superficial charm" is particularly an every day phrase as it basically describes a psychological phenomina specific to psychopaths and a common psychological manipulative strategy.--Penbat (talk) 11:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete: I'd say keep, but that would be superficial. What nonsense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.80.51.94 (talk) 13:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I consider the term notable enough for an article: its use in the Hare Checklist justifies elaborations. I do not consider it a question of whether the term is used with its "common" meaning. Instead, in the long run defining criteria will have to be elaborated in the context of the theories that use the term. What is more, the aim of an article is not just clarification of the meaning of terms, but also informing about notable uses of a term. Indeed, the existing article does little in that direction. It lacks definition, clear differentiation of fields of application ("psychopaths" vs. salesmen), references etc. However, in principle I see no WP:FAILN. Why not a notability instead? --Morton Shumway (talk) 14:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC).
 * Keep For now - seems to be used in some other pyschological artiles and could possible expand to cover its subject more thoroughly. I note that there is no direct article on 'charm' yet as I would have said merge. Lee&there4;V (talk  •  contribs)  10:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: "Superficial charm" has a specific focus as an insincere and manipulative form of charm. The phrase is also partly self-explanatory. The focus would be completely lost if it as merged with "charm", if that article existed. "Superficial charm" has distinct characteristics. The article is still stub status and has the potential to grow quite big, it is just a matter of digging out good sources.--Penbat (talk) 11:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Is the charm of a good person different from the charm of an evil person? I personally don't think the charm is different, it is just used for different purposes. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: I thought I had already explained the difference. Whether or not superficial charm can be merged with charm is something that can be thrashed out over time on Talk:Superficial charm. There may be several pros and cons to consider. It is probably a long term discussion as charm only currently exists as a DAB page and a merge may not necessarily be viable anyway.--Penbat (talk) 07:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If you did it went over my head. I also wish the article would explain. Right now it just states that certain people have superficial charm, without explaining what that is. Trying to be more clear. I agree with all the statements in the article and I agree that they give important information. I do not want to take any of this information off of WP. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep per leevanjackson. I am surprised how many notable psychology terms have been nominated lately for deletion.  What's going on? I thought we were a comprehensive encyclopedia. Bearian (talk) 23:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, by WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary there should not be articles on terms, only on the things and ideas that the terms name. In my opinion, in this case there should be entries in Wiktionary for "superficial" and for "charm", as there are. From those it is obvious what "superficial charm" is.  Then WP articles on the various psychological disorders should mention that one symptom is superficial charm.  It's possible that in some cases a symptom could be bad personal hygene.  This should be noted. But we don't need an article on "Bad personal hygene".  I don't think so anyway. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong keep and expand: The brief stub about "Superficial Charm," a phrase that has been in daily use for decades by mental health professionals as a formal diagnostic criterion for sociopathy and anti-social personality disorder, especially when related to criminal recidivism, is useful to me. The Hare Psychopathy Checklist is a widely used, well-established diagnostic tool that lists "Superficial charm" as THE VERY FIRST of 20 test criteria that can form the basis for a diagnosis of psychopathy. The stub on "Superficial charm" would be more useful if it were expanded, not deleted. The fact that some Wikipedia readers may not find the term familiar, comprehensible, or personally useful - or that it is comprised of two common words that can be found in any dictionary - does not justify the article's deletion. Court-qualified witnesses and social service providers employ the term "Superficial charm" to identify a type of behavior that frequently occurs together with certain specific other behaviors such as Self-aggrandizing to form the basis of specific mental health diagnoses in both the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) and the World Health Organization's International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems or ICD-10 classification of mental disorders. The fact that a Google search for "Superficial charm definition" produces 1,140,000 hits - almost all related to the professional literature of psychiatry - plainly indicates the frequency of use, and implicitly the usefulness, of the phrase in professional mental health circles. The fact that some Wikipedia readers, or even mental health professionals, may not share a universal consensus on exactly when "Superficial charm" is pathological, and when it is not, is not a reason for deleting an article about it from Wikipedia. The phrase "Superficial charm" appears in other Wikipedia articles, as well it should, and as it surely will continue to appear. The ongoing use of the term and the effort to carefully apply "Superficial charm" as a mental health diagnostic criterion makes the article about it all the more important. The article should be expanded, not deleted.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.24.160.112 (talk) 10:25, 20 June 2010 (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.