Victorian mourning dolls: It is poorly referenced and needs more and diverse original sources not just one.  It also needs more actual sources around 19th century mourning customs and more geographic specificality as there are some cultures where actual documented customs have some relationship to these [essentially fictitious and modern] descriptions of these practices The source does not appear to be a reliable, refereed encyclopedia rather some random internet collection of opinion.  When the original source is checked there is no clear indication of who published the source or who wrote or organised the compilation of the published edited material and what their personal or institutional expertse is
 the link leads to a page called faqs.org which seems to plaigarise material from another publication the second reference to wax dolls is a blog page that now is a dead link it also should belong more to a fan-dom wiki or a goth or horror wiki rather than an encyclopedic, neutral POV.  Much of this is more recent cultural fantasy, urban myths or modern fake news than Victorian practice.  We need input from historians rather than horror fans Bebe Jumeau ( talk ) 13:07, 15 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ).   I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 November 16 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 01:20, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Bebe Jumeau , I'm not sure why you tagged this article for AFD and PROD at the same time even though you PROD'd the article several years ago.  What did you find in your WP:BEFORE ?  What is your assessment of the current sources?  L iz Read!  Talk!  01:30, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] part of the issue is that I got pages detailing the processes mixed up I doubt when I tagged it for deletion some years ago that I actually followed up and did the right things to ensure that other eyes saw the tag.  So I would be grateful for any experienced wikpedians to ensure that the protocols are followed and there is adequate discussion The lack of reliable and professional documentation has been consistent since 2014, and it should have been deleted  when I first nominated it.  It does no credit to wikipedia and does not offer any reliable information that would assist someone investigating attitude to death and children Bebe Jumeau ( talk ) 06:15, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:40, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : [21] Archived version of the dead link, but good luck reading it due to the background.  Curbon7 ( talk ) 02:09, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] sourced from dollsbydiane.com, which doesn't strike me as a RS.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 02:36, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] agree this blog - now dead - or at least archived  is not a RS so anither clear reason for deletion of this very sloppy and substanard article Bebe Jumeau ( talk ) 06:10, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Surprisingly little information on this, beyond some mentions of the term [22] and [23] .  And why is the article about Victorian times then talks about Puritan times, you're a few hundred years apart there...  I wonder if there is a different name for these dolls?  They seem to have been a thing, but nothing is written about them...  Oaktree b ( talk ) 02:34, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That is hard for me to believe as they have been mentioned in just about every American history text used in my graduate seminars years ago.  They were a big thing.  I'll see if I have any of them around.  L iz Read!  Talk!  06:18, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The main issue is that these dolls were not "a thing", except in the minds of 21st century north americans.  like post mortem photography there are a lot of modern adhesions to popular culture around funerals.  certainly people used effigies in early modern times to commemorate especially notable deceased persons, which were fully dressed lifelike figures, many of the wax child dolls in glass cases were votive figures or catholic religious figures, which have sometimes been repurposed as dolls.  The image on the page would appear to be an infant Jesus.  Also toys, dolls, clothing and other relics of deceased children were often kept under glass domes or in glass cases, but not in the way that this article claims Bebe Jumeau ( talk ) 08:01, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment There seems to be this 19 century book which has a section on death dolls starting on the page numbered 27 - if the link doesn’t work, try searching for ‘death’ I don’t think it has been mentioned above, if it has I apologise.  JMWt ( talk ) 08:04, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That book is pioneering psychologist and [racist] eugenicist G Stanley Hall's sociological study from 1897 of how children play with dolls  and how their attitude towards dolls and plahy indicates elements of their development and psychological status.  he is talking here about how children often play at mock funerals with generic dolls that they own in their imaginative play and how children rpoject human mortality and sentience onto inanimate dolls.  This is nothing about the family commissioning a doll to be displayed.  at te funeral and later either put on the grave or kept at home for display.  He does not propose that there is a specific type of funeral or mourning doll Bebe Jumeau ( talk ) 11:31, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - I don’t see justification for the claims on the page, the majority appear to be unverified WP:V .  I think there could be justification for a page about death dolls, but I agree with Bebe Jumeau that the particular focus of the page is hard to justify.  JMWt ( talk ) 11:46, 16 November 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete