Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement? (2nd nomination)


 * 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

aprock (talk) suggests that this article should be deleted because of issues related to notability and because it is a POV fork. Yfever (talk) 00:41, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. I nominated this article at Aprock's suggestion, but my personal opinion is that this article should be kept. (Full disclosure: I have added a majority of the content to the article.) Aprock raises two issues: Notability and POV fork. With regard to notability, I have (after Aprock's comment) added a reliable source to the article which notes, correctly in my view, that the article is "the most controversial article in the history of American psychology." As the many references that I have added substantiate, there is no doubt that this was a hugely controversial article. (My personal opinion is that the article was flawed as well, but I don't think that truth/falseness enters into a judgment about notability.) With regard to a POV fork, I don't really understand that complaint. I can see that the topic of race/IQ/Jensen is a contentious topic at Wikipedia. But my purpose in creating this article is simply to create this article. I don't see it as a fork from anything else. And I would certainly love it if other people would contribute to the article as well! If anyone has any suggestions for how to improve the article, assuming it is kept, please let me know on the talk page. Yfever (talk) 21:01, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment&mdash;At a superficial level, based on the references, this article appears to satisfy the notability requirements. If this is a PoV fork, where is it a fork from? It looks to be an orphan. Regards, RJH (talk) 21:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Redirect/Delete per the previous AfD. I suggest that anyone interested in commenting at this AfD review the previous AfD discussion, as the discussion there is entirely relevant to this version of the article.  The forking issues here amount to replicating content already covered extensively and in fuller context at Arthur Jensen and History of the race and intelligence controversy.  Standalone articles such as these are ripe for presenting the work without sufficient context.  Already, despite the fact that the work is called "most controversial", there is no substantive discussion of this controvery.  Better to just point to the articles which have the content instead of creating a useless stub.  aprock (talk) 04:43, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment "replicating content"? At least 9 of the 15 citations in the article do not appear in those other two article sections. Those are all new reliable sources that I found and added. Assuming that the article is kept, I am happy to add more "substantive discussion of this controversy" but the lack of such a discussion currently does not strike me as a reason to delete. (But, to be clear, I don't have any experience with this process.) Yfever (talk) 06:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I guess this comes down to how you feel about the previous AfD. If you disagree with it, I can see why you might want to rehash the entire discussion again.  As it stands, there is no need to fork this content off into a separate article.  The coverage of the book in the main articles is more complete and in a better context. aprock (talk) 16:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with you that feelings about the previous AfD might play a big part here. I read through it, but then got lost in some of the related (endless) fighting/sniping on various other pages. Quite a battle! So, I can't say that I really agree or disagree with the previous discussion. I don't really care about it. I just want to write a good article. One other comment: isn't it a sign that we need a separate article that this topic has extensive coverage in (at least) two other places, as your links demonstrate? That is, it makes sense (to me) to create a single good article and then provide links to it from anywhere that makes sense. That is how I see articles like Flynn Effect working, but maybe I don't understand the reasoning here. In any event, I appreciate your comments. Yfever (talk) 17:46, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep I tend to agree with Yfever that because this piece of writing itself is controversial in nature in the field that it merits its own article. It sounds like Yfever is committed to working on this.  I am not terribly familiar with the topic, but if it can in any way be claimed that the article is "the most controversial article in the history of American psychology" readers would only be served by there being a comprehensive wikipedia article about it.  --MLKLewis (talk) 23:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Arthur Jensen. No need to fork information about this to a separate article, and the treatment in the Jensen article is fuller than that in this article. Only if the information in Arthur Jensen becomes so extensive as to overwhelm that article should a split be necessary. (Note that I can't see the previous article deleted via AfD.) Deor (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 01:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect seems like the obvious solution. I would not have a problem with a "keep". It's a page that seems unnecessary more than anything. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 01:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Famous article, not merely notable. Hundreds of papers discussing it. Can't see why it's unnecessary--sometimes a scientific paper by itself is notable. It's more than the most controversial paper in the history of American psychology--it's the most controversial one in psychology ever. When something is famous enough, it gets a separate article. Isn't that what the entire principle of Notability is about? Merging this into Jensen is like merging Hamlet into Shakespeare. It could be done, but it shows an unawareness of appropriate emphasis.   DGG ( talk ) 06:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per all -- Bryce  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 13:22, 5 January 2012 (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.