Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nations and intelligence


 * 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. WP:SK2 - Disruptive nomination by a now-blocked sockpuppet. If there is an issue here that requires deletion a good-faith renomination can be made, but this is not that nomination. The Bushranger One ping only 11:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Nations and intelligence

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Vote: Delete. Why does this page exist? It is entirely the same page as Race and Intelligence and is a thinly veiled promotional piece for 2 long discredited racist authors.Lord and Sovereign of Truth (talk) 05:51, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2016 January 6.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 07:47, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep It is not the same page, so there is not copyright infringement. Also the topic is a bit different - different nations, versus different races, though these is a bit of overlap. It looks to be enough distinct material to justify a separate article rather than a merge. Although Rindermann gets a bit of a mention, it is not excessive, and mentions can be removed and just turned into references. Checking several references, the topic is not a hoax, and the topic is notable. So the basis for the nomination is completely flawed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:52, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: Nominator is currently blocked for disruptive editing. (Not having read the article, I offer no opinion on the deletion request.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:54, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Obvious Delete because I want to assume good faith, I have to assume anyone who votes Keep has not actually read any of the article carefully and has merely glanced at it for a second or two, not long enough to see that it is not English prose, not actually provided any grounds for its claims. Let's read some of the prose from this article, starting right from the top:
 * "The measurement, correlates and cause of average intelligence score variation between nations has been a controversial issue in the fields of psychology and economics. " This is extremely poor English and has no clear meaning
 * "It has been shown national intelligence correlates with GDP, health, fertility rate and other variables. " This has not been shown, and there is no reference for this "showing". What, may I ask, is "national intelligence?" And the fact that two things are "correlated" is hardly notable in itself, even if it were true, since the causation likely works in the reverse of what the author is implying by innuendo. and none of these alleged correlations are referenced whatsoever. Once again the English is at the level of an illiterate 3rd grader. The author of most of the article has been asked to stop editing English Wiki articles because he is incompetent to do so.
 * "Both environmental factors, including different stage of Flynn effect caused by difference in nutrition and health, and educational attainment, and genetic effect could explain the differences. " sheer unsourced speculation. Who says they could explain the differences? The differences have not even been reasonably shown to definitively exist and they are obviously the effect of wealth differences (hint: this is why people pay for education and medical care, for instance). The Flynn effect itself is highly controversial and cannot be just mentioned as if it is some obvious truth. And I have no idea what the author means in saying "different stage of Flynn effect caused by difference in nutrition and health" there are far too many grammatical errors here  to count. No one is ever going to fix all the erroneous grammar and unsourced info in this page. It must be deleted.
 * "It has been argued that environmental improvement in developing countries could lead to narrowing of IQ difference." It has? By whom? What the hell is "environmental improvement"? How can any of you believe the author of this sentence should get their article kept when he cannot write an English sentence without multiple grammatical and factual errors if his life depended on it? "Could lead to narrowing of IQ difference?" This is the prose you want in your English encylopedia? Machine translations of Chinese fortune cookies would have a greater claim to inclusion.
 * "The first attempt to estimate IQ score among nations across the world has been the 2002 book IQ and the Wealth of Nations by Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen." Says who it is the first attempt? IQ "score"? "Among nations across the world?" "Has been the 2002 book?" There are almost a dozen grammatical errors in this sentence, and it merely takes a not notable book by fringe pseudoscientific theorists and deifies it as the final word on the subject
 * "IQ estimates in that book has been updated and validated by international student assessment studies in works by themselves and others (see #Studies of national cognitive ability)." Again, mere say-so by the authors to spread their racist innuendo. "Has been updated and validated?"in what way, updated and validated? According to whom? It has not been validated by anyone. "Works by themselves and others?" This article is pure, utter nonsense. Read a sentence at random and you will find multiple grammatical errors, unspucrced claims, and vulgar pseudoscientific gibberish. The Nominating author is correct. This article is a blatant hoax, by an obviously incompetent editor who should not be allowed to continue editing here. Its methods and conclusions have been criticized by a number researchers.[1] 2600:1017:B429:59DC:24B3:6E45:B269:663 (talk) 11:19, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

IP blocked as obvious block evasion by nominator (per WP:DUCK and by geolocation to same place as one of the IPs at Sockpuppet investigations/World Champion Editor). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:45, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Struck content above collapsed. North America1000 13:26, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep as a nomination by a sock puppet, almost regardless of the other merits. The nomination is based upon WP:IDONTLIKEIT and fails on that basis. The article has references and passes WP:GNG, but the nominator seems to wish to delete any articles they disagree with, certainly the sock master behaves in this manner. Fiddle   Faddle  14:55, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep per the above. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:24, 6 January 2016 (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.