Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intelligence quotient


 * 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. AfD is not a place to raise a debate, use the talkpage istead. I am closing this one since the result is obviously not going to be a deletion. Tone 22:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Intelligence quotient

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

Something must be done with this article because it is more and more skewing to represent only one side, the supporters and praisers of the IQ testing. The alternative opinion definitely exists as in many important cases like employment IQ tests are actually banned or severely restricted by law, It is possible to find numerous scientific publications that give completely different picture than it is represented in the article. There are enough people without any good opinion about the possible social consequences of this theory that is now pushed everywhere on a Web. This opinion must be represented, and not in the form "some say so but this is surely not true".

However numerous attempts to make the content more neutral are not helpful because the content of the opposing side is just briefly removed. The most you can expect is that one person proposes in the discussion to drop the sentence and another drops it - not a good payment for the serious search of scientific reference.

I actually do not know how to deal with the situation when Wikipedia publishes something that makes certain part of the readers really angry but this material also finds enough supporters to stay. There are enough racists or fascists on the world remaining, but nobody allows them to have a page with open support of they ideology.

I am sure that the article on this topic should be in Wikipedia, because the subject itself is notable. However nominating it for deletion may finally raise a discussion about the level of POV on the subject. Removing it in the present shape is also not a big loss: Wikpedia would likely more benefit from having the shorter, but balanced and neutral article written from scratch.

Audriusa (talk) 18:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep The OP has not contributed to the article for over a year, it is unreasonable to talk about people reverting good edits. This is gaming the system to cause trouble as the subject is notable and I feel there should be a temporary ban imposed. Having strong feelings about a subject confers no entitlement, this I feel is disruptive point of view pushing. Why can't the OP write the changes wanted first and have them reverted if that is what is going to happen and then there would be something to see and talk about and grounds for raising he matter for arbitration if they feel the revert is unreasonable. Dmcq (talk) 19:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Although I can understand the OP's desire for discussion, this is not the forum for such an issue. The article does not meet any of the Reasons for deletion and I highly recommend withdrawing this request and seeking another means of editor input. If the OP wants to create a superior version from scratch, he/she can easily do so in a text editor or on a user subpage --Jh12 (talk) 19:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. This AfD was not created with the proper afd2 template at the top. This was causing problems on the log page. I have edited it to fix this problem. The formatting of the original post may have changed by an extra line break but I have not altered the text. KuyaBriBri Talk 20:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep under WP:SK ground 1: The nominator agrees Wikipedia should have an article on this topic. AfD is not here to "raise a discussion about the level of POV on the subject."-- S Marshall   Talk / Cont  21:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep per Marshall et. al. AFD isn't an appropriate venue for discussions of article content; however, WP:RFC might be. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 21:52, 3 March 2009 (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.