- 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. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) VdSV9• ♫ 15:11, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Max Pulver ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article remains unsouced (since 2017) for all its content except for the existence of two of his books. Recently added sources are one article discussing one his novels - not of him -; and one is a two paragraph mention of one of his books on a list of books. WP:BEFORE could not find any significant coverage in secondary sources. Looked for refs used in the articles in other languages, nothing meets WP:GNG. VdSV9• ♫ 15:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. VdSV9• ♫ 15:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. VdSV9• ♫ 15:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Switzerland. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:51, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- What do you see see when you click on "books" above? Phil Bridger ( talk) 15:53, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Pretty much the same list of books that given in the article. We need to see that he's covered in other, non-related workds. Oaktree b ( talk) 16:02, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Really? We must get something different then, because none of the books that I see are by Max Pulver, but by other people writing about him. I hope that this discussion is not motivated by a dislike of graphology. That the whole basis of the field has now been shown to be bunkum has nothing to do with the notability of someone who was writing about it when it was still considered to be a respectable scientific endeavour.
Phil Bridger (
talk)
16:09, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- I concur with this. The Google Books link takes me to books, in various languages, which mention Pulver, not (initially, at any rate) any books by him. Jclemens ( talk) 17:31, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Really? We must get something different then, because none of the books that I see are by Max Pulver, but by other people writing about him. I hope that this discussion is not motivated by a dislike of graphology. That the whole basis of the field has now been shown to be bunkum has nothing to do with the notability of someone who was writing about it when it was still considered to be a respectable scientific endeavour.
Phil Bridger (
talk)
16:09, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Clicking on "books" I see some passing mentions of him. Nothing I would call significant coverage, which is a GNG requirement. VdSV9• ♫ 18:34, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per
WP:NAUTHOR, which (unusually) allows a person to derive notability from their works even without direct biographical coverage. Conventionally, 2 or 3 wiki-notable books are sufficient for NAUTHOR. I found 2 reviews each for Pulver's books as follows, stopping my search after 2 because that's all
WP:NBOOK needs:
- Himmelpfortgasse: 1, here, and 2, here
- Symbolik der Handschrift: 1, here and 2, subscription-only without a non-institutional link, a review by Bally (1930) Imago, 17(4): 531-533.
- Trieb und Verbrechen in der Handschrift: 1, here, and 2, subscription-only without a non-institutional link, a review by Marseille, W. (1937) Imago, 23(3): 386.
- I didn't see much need to keep going with his later books because this is plenty, but I expect the next 2 also pass NBOOK. Additionally, Pulver appears frequently in a 1963 book which was reprinted in 2019 (indicating some ongoing relevance),
Die moderne Handschriftendeutung. I can't read German but this book may have useful information about the extent to which Pulver is now discredited.
~ L 🌸 (
talk)
18:39, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- I also think there's a good case for a
WP:NPROF criteria 1 pass, which also does not require direct biographical coverage, due to his influence on graphology as captured in statements like "These Freudian analyses ultimately result from the work of a Swiss graphologist called Max Pulver"
here.
~ L 🌸 (
talk)
18:43, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Of course it would be much better to have sources that tell us his pet dog's name or his inside leg measurement, but, in the absence of those, we will have to put up with sources about the writings that make him notable.
Phil Bridger (
talk)
21:53, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- And in fact, I've just realised that he is included in the German Dictionary of National Biography! Which is also a clear-cut pass of WP:ANYBIO criteria 3 -- and could have been determined directly from the authority control box on the article at the time of nomination. ~ L 🌸 ( talk) 00:42, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- Of course it would be much better to have sources that tell us his pet dog's name or his inside leg measurement, but, in the absence of those, we will have to put up with sources about the writings that make him notable.
Phil Bridger (
talk)
21:53, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- I also think there's a good case for a
WP:NPROF criteria 1 pass, which also does not require direct biographical coverage, due to his influence on graphology as captured in statements like "These Freudian analyses ultimately result from the work of a Swiss graphologist called Max Pulver"
here.
~ L 🌸 (
talk)
18:43, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Thank you all for your input, especially LEvalyn. I'm withdrawing the nomination. VdSV9• ♫ 15:10, 11 March 2022 (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.
- 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. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) VdSV9• ♫ 15:11, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Max Pulver ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article remains unsouced (since 2017) for all its content except for the existence of two of his books. Recently added sources are one article discussing one his novels - not of him -; and one is a two paragraph mention of one of his books on a list of books. WP:BEFORE could not find any significant coverage in secondary sources. Looked for refs used in the articles in other languages, nothing meets WP:GNG. VdSV9• ♫ 15:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. VdSV9• ♫ 15:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. VdSV9• ♫ 15:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Switzerland. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:51, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- What do you see see when you click on "books" above? Phil Bridger ( talk) 15:53, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Pretty much the same list of books that given in the article. We need to see that he's covered in other, non-related workds. Oaktree b ( talk) 16:02, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Really? We must get something different then, because none of the books that I see are by Max Pulver, but by other people writing about him. I hope that this discussion is not motivated by a dislike of graphology. That the whole basis of the field has now been shown to be bunkum has nothing to do with the notability of someone who was writing about it when it was still considered to be a respectable scientific endeavour.
Phil Bridger (
talk)
16:09, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- I concur with this. The Google Books link takes me to books, in various languages, which mention Pulver, not (initially, at any rate) any books by him. Jclemens ( talk) 17:31, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Really? We must get something different then, because none of the books that I see are by Max Pulver, but by other people writing about him. I hope that this discussion is not motivated by a dislike of graphology. That the whole basis of the field has now been shown to be bunkum has nothing to do with the notability of someone who was writing about it when it was still considered to be a respectable scientific endeavour.
Phil Bridger (
talk)
16:09, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Clicking on "books" I see some passing mentions of him. Nothing I would call significant coverage, which is a GNG requirement. VdSV9• ♫ 18:34, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per
WP:NAUTHOR, which (unusually) allows a person to derive notability from their works even without direct biographical coverage. Conventionally, 2 or 3 wiki-notable books are sufficient for NAUTHOR. I found 2 reviews each for Pulver's books as follows, stopping my search after 2 because that's all
WP:NBOOK needs:
- Himmelpfortgasse: 1, here, and 2, here
- Symbolik der Handschrift: 1, here and 2, subscription-only without a non-institutional link, a review by Bally (1930) Imago, 17(4): 531-533.
- Trieb und Verbrechen in der Handschrift: 1, here, and 2, subscription-only without a non-institutional link, a review by Marseille, W. (1937) Imago, 23(3): 386.
- I didn't see much need to keep going with his later books because this is plenty, but I expect the next 2 also pass NBOOK. Additionally, Pulver appears frequently in a 1963 book which was reprinted in 2019 (indicating some ongoing relevance),
Die moderne Handschriftendeutung. I can't read German but this book may have useful information about the extent to which Pulver is now discredited.
~ L 🌸 (
talk)
18:39, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- I also think there's a good case for a
WP:NPROF criteria 1 pass, which also does not require direct biographical coverage, due to his influence on graphology as captured in statements like "These Freudian analyses ultimately result from the work of a Swiss graphologist called Max Pulver"
here.
~ L 🌸 (
talk)
18:43, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Of course it would be much better to have sources that tell us his pet dog's name or his inside leg measurement, but, in the absence of those, we will have to put up with sources about the writings that make him notable.
Phil Bridger (
talk)
21:53, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- And in fact, I've just realised that he is included in the German Dictionary of National Biography! Which is also a clear-cut pass of WP:ANYBIO criteria 3 -- and could have been determined directly from the authority control box on the article at the time of nomination. ~ L 🌸 ( talk) 00:42, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- Of course it would be much better to have sources that tell us his pet dog's name or his inside leg measurement, but, in the absence of those, we will have to put up with sources about the writings that make him notable.
Phil Bridger (
talk)
21:53, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- I also think there's a good case for a
WP:NPROF criteria 1 pass, which also does not require direct biographical coverage, due to his influence on graphology as captured in statements like "These Freudian analyses ultimately result from the work of a Swiss graphologist called Max Pulver"
here.
~ L 🌸 (
talk)
18:43, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Thank you all for your input, especially LEvalyn. I'm withdrawing the nomination. VdSV9• ♫ 15:10, 11 March 2022 (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.