Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graphology

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 keep. SynergeticMaggot 04:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Graphology

A copyrighted term about a test you send for in the mail to learn about, and then they send you a certification. It's some pseudoscience that says you can tell a person's characteristics by their handwriting. Just see the page and their site. I don't think this is notable, and the article is certainly POV mboverload@ 00:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep It is impossible to copyright just one word. That organization is just one organization, and this article is not about that organization. If it's a pseudoscience, that's not a reason to delete it. Michael Hardy 00:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. Well-known pseudoscience with a venerable history. The term is a perfectly good dictionary word: AHD says "NOUN: The study of handwriting, especially when employed as a means of analyzing character."[1] Heck, there could even be something in it, although I vaguely seem to recall studies showing that different graphologists' analysis of the same handwriting samples didn't yield consistent results. All articles of this kind need constant watching for the insertion of promotional material and links and for point-of-view pushing; this one could probably benefit from some careful attention, but it doesn't even look particularly bad. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC) P. S. Britannica thinks it's worthy of an article[2]; so does Encarta[3]. I said "venerable," didn't I? How about a 1919 book on "Graphology and the Psychology of Handwriting?" [4] Dpbsmith (talk) 00:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment a Google Scholar search yields 1400 hits, quite a lot for a Scholar search. You can judge for yourself what's the balance of research fur it and research agin' it... but its definitely a serious topic of serious research. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the 1440 makes it notiable. I also don't believe the copywright argument is valid in this case. --Edgelord 01:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - it's a real topic, even if it may be a pseudoscience -- Whpq 01:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I wasn't using the fact that it was copyrighted to make a case to delete it. --mboverload@ 01:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment If that is the case why then was it part of your opening sentence? --Edgelord 01:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Possibly because xe was thinking about trademarks, not copyright, and about Graphoanalysis, not Graphology. I wonder whether the nominator nominated the article that xe intended to nominate. Uncle G 01:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually, I was asking the nominator why he stated the term being copyrighted in the first sentence if that was not being used as a reason to delete the article. I also believe that the correct artilce was nominated because bith the nominator and one of the people voting keep stated that it was about studying handwriting.
• Speedy keep. Graphology is one of the most notable forms of pseudoscience in the modern world. This is like nominating Scientology for deletion. Just make it less messy, source it, and keep it free of the spam and unscientific claims it will surely attract. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep, this is a real pseudoscience that has successfully slithered its way into American courtrooms a few times. The independent report on the Killian memos discusses its significance in the handwriting field. Gazpacho 01:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep per others -- Deville (Talk) 03:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep, the word is a notable pseudoscience term and the article just needs to be sourced and referenced. --Terence Ong _{(Chat | Contribs)} 02:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep... Popular pseudosciences are notable unless you really want to delete Dianetics, Rolfing and Chiromancy too. wikipediatrix 03:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Apparently well referenced, and a well-known term. More references never hurt, though LinaMishima 04:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It's pseudoscience. It's crap. The article needs to indicate that. But it's a real pseudoscience, better known than many, and worthy of entry. Travislangley 05:18, 15 August 2006 (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.