Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human trophy collecting

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. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Human trophy collecting[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence that this is a widely used term for this practice. Completely unsourced microstub. It exists but I find no single name to file it under. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:34, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Originator here, fully concur that the title isn't an official name. I had, when the article was made, solicited input on three different WikiProjects as to exactly what you would call this. I think it's relatively straightforward that there is some sort of behavioural motif in the various ways human remains are kept for symbolic/ceremonial use, in socially accepted ways (i.e. not by some psychopath). I have, however, not run across some clear way to label this social phenomenon. I'm not necessarily against this article (really more of a list) being deleted, but I do submit that, by one name or another, the category be maintained. I'd be fine going to CFD on the category to see if anyone has a better name for it. I just wouldn't want to see the entire idea of grouping together scalp taking, bone trumpets, skull cups, etc. go away. MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Name is not really a problem, we could move it. What is missing is the lack of any references to prove that this concept is real and notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: as above, 100% agree that there has to be a better name. But still argue that, per "common sense", there simply has to be a way to connect the various ways in which human remains are retained for (non-abnormal) reasons. MatthewVanitas (talk) 07:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is remarkably easy to find sources which discuss this topic using phrases such as The taking and displaying of human body parts as trophies... or The practise of collecting human skeletal remains as war trophies.... Colonel Warden (talk) 13:09, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Found a book Human Trophy Collecting: American Mutilation of Japanese War Dead, Headhunting, Scalping, Mimizuka, Skull Cup, Anthropodermic Bibliopegy. Many books have surely been published about this subject, some already found. Article can be expanded. I recall how the Hawaiians went around preserving the skin of others, killing them to take their mana. Dream Focus 15:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are now references to print encyclopedias, as well as a quote from the Christian Bible. Throughout history this practice has been done for a variety of reasons. Dream Focus 15:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You speak of "this practice", but have presented no evidence that this disparate grab-bag of social phenomena are in fact a single cohesive practice -- nor does the article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: lacking a source unifying these loosely related practices, this article is WP:OR (WP:Synthesis if sources for the individual practices are found). Human Trophy Collecting: American Mutilation of Japanese War Dead, Headhunting, Scalping, Mimizuka, Skull Cup, Anthropodermic Bibliopegy is published by General Books LLC and is a WIKIPEDIA MIRROR (most probably of this very article). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Although headhunting and scalping are encyclopedic terms, I am not sure a reader would search for this term or that it is in fact a term.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to be a pretty good generic term applied to these practices. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not entirely sure about the title but the content is a good overview to encompass relics, headhunting and scalping and creates interesting connections. Grolliers is a good source. --James R (talk) 25 January 2011

Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^chat 20:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The fact that the title of the article is not the best title possible is not a reason for deletion. The microstub has now been expanded and sourced. No other reasons for deletion have been offered in the nomination. SnottyWong ^chat 20:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article now has some citations and is better written than many other stubs that have far less potential. As per Colonel Warden's refs there is clearly a topic here. Whether "here" is "Human trophy collecting" or elsewhere, moving is less of an issue than deleting.danno 20:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With 6 inline citations and new material, this article has improved since the AfD, and should be kept.--DThomsen8 (talk) 21:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.