Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations


 * 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  — The consensus here is the same as after the first discussion, merge. Since the content has already been merged the only action that will be taken here is restoring the redirect. —[ DeadEyeArrow – Talk – Contribs ] 22:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Procedural nom, as part of a disputed merge and related ANI thread. So we are taking it to AfD, as one mechanism of getting wider community input. I (Elonka) have no preference on how the article is handled, but am starting the AfD on behalf of User:Zero g, who is unfamiliar with the AfD process. In short: Is Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations notable enough to have its own article? --Elonka 04:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.
 * Merge / delete redirect or delete Quotations from reviews of this book by Hamilton and Mckintosh, both FRS, were added to the article on Richard Lynn. Subsequently User:Richard001 removed a red link in the article by creating a stub for the book, later adding a partial list of academic reviews, a list of contents and his own chapter-by-chapter synopsis. No notability has so far been established for the book, although all of the 7 or 8 academic reviews agree that the data gathered in it for the first time provided a valuable resource. It appears to have been a first draft for subsequent books on eugenics by the same author, which have had a much greater public impact and which have now superseded their predecessor, no longer in print. My own feeling is that the article of Richard Lynn is the most appropriate place to discuss the book. Having the reviews in the article is the most direct way of presenting the material for wikipedia readers, who are far more likely to retain the name of the author than the complicated title. Mathsci (talk) 07:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I'd like to thank Elonka for starting this AfD. Mathsci (talk) 07:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep The article meets the WP:Notability_(books) requirements, "The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience." -- Reviews have been published in 9 different academic journals by different authors. The review by W. D. Hamilton (considered one of the greatest evolutionary theorists of the 20th century) was very positive. In 1996 the book was covered in The Sunday Times which served a general audience. There were other mainstream articles about the book, like "You can't say that!," Antony Flew, The Salisbury Review, Spring 1998., but given the age of the book the actual text is hard to find online. Given the amount of references I don't see why the article should be deleted. --Zero g (talk) 13:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge/redirect or delete Neither the book nor the arguments in it are notable enough for an article of its own. The views expressed really are a synthesis or summary of most of Richard Lynn's work following his retirement from academia.  As such I think the account of the book (and its sister book on Eugenics) is most appropriate in the article on Lynn himself, where it can easily be located in the context of his larger body of work.  Finally, the views promoted in this book are fringe - Lynn is not a geneticist and he is not using "dysgenics" the way geneticists use it.  Lynn himself is far more notable than this particular book (we are not talking about "Darwin" versus "On the Origin of Species" here!) and really, the main reason people know about Lynn is because he espouses the views summarized in the dysgenics book.  Putting all of this stuff together does not even produce a long article, and I see no reason to separate it into two articles. To have an article on Lynn and articles on all his books seems to be nothing more than a way to rpopogate Lynn's views at Wikipedia. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge/ delete redirect This 1996 book has become less notable with time. I count nine independent journal citations in the last seven years, less than two per year. The meager attention that Lynn's book still receives is from psychologists, educators and academics in related fields. I found no citations by biologists or geneticists. It is likely that its poor distribution in academic libraries (missing from those of Columbia, Ohio State, University of Texas at Austin, University of Washington, and Dartmouth College) and its out of print status are correlates of this disinterest. Additionally, I concur with the points made by Slrubenstein and Mathsci. It is important to discuss this book, but, in my opinion, it is best discussed in the Richard Lynn article which provides the context for that discussion. Walter Siegmund (talk) 14:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge/redirect, since you can't merge/delete since that removes the edit history. A summary of the author's views and previous work, not really notable on its own - only two hits on Google News, one of which was a mention in passing. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As a note, considering the clear consensus on the talkpage here I can't personally see why this AfD is necessary. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. It's here because Elonka backed the sole dissenter, see the ANI discussion: because she felt the 5 editors in favor of a merge were working together "in other areas of conflict." Is this a precedent now so that where anyone disagrees we go for an AfD? Does consensus mean unanimity now? Doug Weller (talk) 17:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, a "disputed merge" can still come to a clear consensus, as this one did. Consensus is not unanimity. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's what I thought. I worry that a sole dissenter in a future similar situation will use this as a precedent. Doug Weller (talk) 18:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, this is not a precedent. Unusual admin actions do not override policies and guidelines. I'd see this as a case of Elonka applying WP:IAR in a bold and creative manner. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I understand. Thanks for the explanation. Doug Weller (talk) 18:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If notability is disputed an AfD is the correct route to take instead of duking it out in a dark corner of Wikipedia. Clearly this is one of those cases where, just like the majority of mankind believes earth was created in seven days, the majority chooses to blissfully ignore the large body of available scientific evidence and believe whatever it is they've been told to believe. Apparently I have to accept that Wikipedia is unfit to neutrally deal with controversial topics. --Zero g (talk) 12:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Zero g, the cases are not really comparable. First of all, I don't think a majority of mankind thinks the universe was created in 7 days (the majority is not even Christian). Second, in the present case, the vast majority of scientists who work on human and/or population genetics disagree with Lynn's conclusions, in contrast to creation/evolution where the scientific consensus is on the other side. As far as I can see, the large increases in IQ registered over the past decades (the Flynn effect) don't really fit in with Lynn's thesis either. So the "large body of available scientific evidence" is not as unequivocal as you say. However, the question here is not really whether Lynn's hypothesis is right or wrong, Wikipedia is not about The Truth, which is why you have articles on creationism as well as evolution or astrology. AfD is about notability and this particular hypothesis seems te be ignored by almost anyone, hence it is not notable. Correct/incorrect does not really enter into this. As for neutrality, nobody here is arguing for suppressing Lynn's ideas from Wikipedia, just that a whole article on this theory is not warranted. --Crusio (talk) 12:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Jews, Christians, and Muslims (all 7 days peoples) add up to well over 3 billion. Next, more scientists have agreed (some with reservations of course) with Lynn's conclusions than disagreed, most have not expressed an opinion. But please add your source with this information to the Dysgenics article, it will save a lot of future disputes. Next the Flynn effect is phenotypic where as dysgenic research studies genotypic trends, this is explained in the dysgenics article I think.
 * The article provides the sources required (though barely) to meet book notability. I honestly believed the article was sufficiently sourced, had potential for growth, and would make a good encyclopedic contribution about the dysgenic hypothesis, but I respect the votes and opinions in this AfD that this isn't enough, and I apologize for all the drama and extra work this dispute has caused. --Zero g (talk) 17:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * C'mon, you must be kidding, each and every one of those 3 billion Jews, Christians, and Muslims is a creationist?? As for the lack of scientists making time to publish a paper disagreeing with Lynn's hypotheses, how many scientists have done that for astrology? The fact that Lynn is ignored except for a few exceptions says it all. --Crusio (talk) 17:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge/Delete. Per the numerous talk page and AN/I thread arguments, esp. on the notability and FRINGE-y nature of the theory, the whacked out notions of the unqualified author, and so on. Glad to offer a voice to this pointless exercise in bureaucracy which Elonka has forced on us to circumvent normal procedure, as seen on the article talk and AN/I thread. So let's reinforce normal consensus and make the statement that the normal process works, and process wonkery and manipulation will not get around the common sense decisions already reached in the normal style. ThuranX (talk) 17:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge/delete . The topic isn't notable by itself, and is better handled in the context of the larger topic. As for this AfD, sometimes it's worth going through an extra bureaucratic hoop to make sure that every hurdle has been crossed. We don't do strawpolls much, so in this case an AfD is the best way to establish the views of the community definitively. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge/Redirect WP:BK says this of academic books: Academic books serve a very different function and come to be published through very different processes than do books intended for the general public. They are often highly specialized, have small printing runs, and may only be available in specialized libraries and bookstores. For these reasons, the bulk of standards delineated previously for mainstream books are incompatible in the academic bailiwick. Again, common sense should prevail. In that case, notability should rely on the reputation of the academic press publishing it, how widely the book is cited by other academic publications or in the media, how influential the book is considered to be in its specialty area and whether it is taught or required reading in a number of reputable educational institutions. I would dare say that 9 or so reviews since its publication 12 years ago, about half of which are from colleagues or fellow Pioneer Fundees, the almost utter non-existence of citations of this book outside of the author itself and a few very close associates, and the total silence about this book in more than 5 years now should speak for its lack of notability on its own. However, it would be suitable for inclusion in the article about the author, who is far more notable.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. This book doesn't appear to be notable. I can imagine that the book might be used as a source in a different article, but that doesn't require a redirect. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge/redirect per Tim Vickers. Of course geneticists don't cite this stuff, this kind of reasoning was debunked ages ago. Friedrich Vogel, one of the greatest (if not the greatest) postwar German human geneticists used to scoff about this kind of theories that "people don't understand what regression to the mean means". but that's OR I guess :-). Anyway, the only iteresting part about this book is that it was written by Richard Lynn, who is notable because of his wacky fringe theories. --Crusio (talk) 23:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect. The academic world has ignored the work, and the political controversy associated with the work is more attached to the author. Summary style for a long article does not suggest that this would be a good candidate for spin-out if Richard Lynn (currently 36 kb) grows unmanageably large. - Eldereft (cont.) 01:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge/Redirect, per WP:CONSENSUS in the merge discussion. No opinion as to whether deletion is necessary (or possible, under GFDL, as some information (previously) in this article has been merged), although that would be the nominal purpose of this AfD.  No new arguments against the merge have been presented, no new editors have come out against the merge, and therefore there's no reason to consider the WP:CONSENSUS overturned.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: WP:SNOW, anyone???--Ramdrake (talk) 18:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Response I have no objections, looks like the consensus is to redirect to the merged content on the Richard Lynn article. --Zero g (talk) 19:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, just let it run the whole 5 days, there is one editor that doesn't agree (Zero g) and he is making reasonable objections, so it doesn't technically apply here. Closing now wouldn't give him time to address the arguments brought forward by other editors. And, a snow closure may cause disruptive amounts of drama if/when the AFD result is challenged on the basis of bad procedure. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment As the creator of the article, I'm happy to see the AfD which I requested to begin with, only to find it had been merged while I was on a wikibreak. I wasn't very familiar with the guidelines for academic books, which still aren't very clear for borderline cases. It seems to meet the notability criteria for a book, but presumably that doesn't apply for an academic book. (I have modified said guidelines to reflect this, which shouldn't cause any fuss if that is the case.) However, it seems that those experienced with this procedure agree with the decision, so merging will have to be enough, even if information on the book is to be lost. By the way, liked Mathsci's comment "name is too complicated". Classic. Richard001 (talk) 07:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge/Redirect. As per arguments already made. Minkythecat (talk) 10:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge, redirect per numerous pertinnt arguments above. That's a better result for the reader, IMO. Guy (Help!) 18:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I've kind of had my change of WP:BK reverted, though I presume it was just because of a misunderstanding. It's probably going to be a controversial change, however. Thinking about it more it seems very strange that an academic book can meet the criteria for a book and still not be notable. I mean, it is a book, isn't it? Would anyone like to attempt to show how it doesn't meet the normal criteria for a book? By my reckoning, it meets them with relative ease, whereas a lot of similar book articles here seem to come up short of the mark (many don't have a single citation, though I rarely see them going in the AfD direction). I appreciate that it's pretty weak on the citations, but I think if it meets the criteria for any book as outlined it the nutshell, it should therefore be notable. Richard001 (talk) 00:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not see how every published book merits an article. That a book is published in and of itself does not make it notable.  WP:BK lists five criteria for notability and I personally do not think Lynn's book meets even one of these criteria.  (I happen to agree with Richard001 that different criteria should apply to academic books; the guidelines provide three criteria and I would argue that the first is a non-critera - publication by an academic press is simply one of the things that defines the book as academic - and on the grounds of the two notability criteria that follow, I would say that this particular book is definitely not notable.)  I am sure Zero G would disagree with me; notability is often not a lcear-cut issue but requires judgement. It is a little reassuring that I am not alone in reaching this judgment. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 11:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Academic books meet a different set of criteria than standard books, as outlined above, for a number of reasons: first their usually much lower volume makes some criteria less applicable; second and most importantly, notability in the scientific arena is measured differently: a book is notable if the ideas it sets forward are reprised and integrated by later researchers, and eventually taught in schools and universities. That is the hallmark of scientific notability. In the specific case of this book, it was reviewed a few times, many of the reviewers were in the same circle as Lynn (which means it doesn't really count for book notability), and apart from a citation or two from the very author of the book, didn't really get cited again. To me, that's a pretty clear-cut case of academic non-notability.--Ramdrake (talk) 12:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect. Utterly non-notable book, it's only relevance seems to be that it was written by a publicity seeking controversial retired academic. Any mention of the book on Wikipedia should therefore be included in said academic's article, if it needs to be mentioned at all. Alun (talk) 15:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge with some revision, although it looks to me like it was already merged into the author's main article, with editing, and is a better presentation. Anyway, the article as written deals with a subject that sounds interesting and seems valid; I don't question the notability of the author; and it is written intelligently.  However, it's a wee long - especially for a book which, according to the author's wiki article, is now out of print.  That doesn't subtract from the book's validity or notability in itself, however.  But the article could be shortened - a chapter-by-chapter explanation is not necessary - we need an overview, that's all.  I also believe that any article on a book should give a little bit more information on the author - just a quick bit about their background and other works, not a complete biography.  My only big objection is to the list of reviews at the end - unacceptable!  I'd rather see at least one pos and one negative review in summary on the page itself, than a long list of dead links like that - it's just not very professional and can, at times, be deceiving.  itinerant_tuna (talk) 03:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge I agree with itinerant_tuna. The book seems borderline notable, or could be merged with the article on the author.  However the article is really a coatrack for presenting the author's opinions. (There is a lot of this on WP.)  On the other hand, I feel that a lot of the delete voters are motivated by their dislike of the same.  I could be wrong however. Maybe they would also vote to delete a coatrack article on a "politically correct" book. -Steve Dufour (talk) 19:08, 26 July 2008 (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.