Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sloping forehead

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. ^Complex/_Rational 17:52, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sloping forehead[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Per WP:NLIST, One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. As the term is a WP:DICDEF, this is the criteria which seems to apply, however I cannot find a source grouping the term under multiple different conditions. Seeing a few of the listed entries, the list inclusion seems to me like original research and I find it concerningly similar to phrenology, although contacting the author they assure there is no connection to phrenology. I am not so inclined to draftify, because the grouping under the dictionary definition symptom does not seem salvageable to me.

Note that while the user who created the article is a sock, the SPI is resolved with the user now editing under only the account Runabout5921 (talk · contribs). I see similar issues with list of conditions with craniosynostosis but would rather see how this AfD goes first. Darcyisverycute (talk) 15:01, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Darcyisverycute (talk) 15:01, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: DICDEF followed by a list of conditions... I don't see the need. Oaktree b (talk) 15:09, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to let everyone know that if it is not notable enough for continued inclusion then I will not object to the deletion of this article. Runabout5921 (talk) 18:46, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all the above, this isn't Wikipedia's job. A non-article by a permanently-blocked sock, by the way. We can't possibly have a list of all conditions for every imaginable symptom: Wikipedia is not a medical dictionary, nor for that matter a diagnosis aid. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:49, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Please see article creator User: ViewingHabit, blocked on October 5, 2023 as a sock puppet of User:Ted Shackelford.— Maile (talk) 21:30, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I noted in my nomination, the SPI was resolved subject to a one account restriction and so this is not eligible for CSD G5, which states any pages created via the sock account after the earliest block or ban of any of that person's accounts qualify for G5 (emphasis added). I know this is a rare case where an SPI was confirmed but only limited to a one account restriction, but I do not think it is relevant to the nomination itself. Darcyisverycute (talk) 05:27, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reminder. — Maile (talk) 17:43, 3 January 2024 (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.