Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Race and intelligence 2


 * 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 - there seems to be heavy consensus against deletion. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 06:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Race and intelligence (and series), Sex and intelligence, Sex and crime
This is going to be controversial... but here goes. These articles are extremely biased towards one side (research supporting the notion). They show several graphs that are dubiously straight-forward with no outliers or off-centre concentrations. They are unencyclopaedic and source scientists that are anything but notable or even respected in the community. The studies are not contemporarily recognized in any important source and are condemned by the overwhelming majority of today's scientists as well as the overwhelming majority of the world's community at large, while this is barely notioned. If the articles were made neutral they might be considered, however they would still be unencyclopaedic and non-notable (except for historical reasons perhaps). Reading over the Sex and intelligence article, I found it utterly unbelievable that craniometry is referenced without any mention of the fact it is no longer considered relevant in the fields of science. I quote from the "sex and crime" article:

"People have long recognized a relationship among humans between biological sex and tendency to commit crime. Generally, men are on average more aggressive and much more likely than women to commit violent crimes. Men are also far more likely than women to be the victims of such crimes. This relationship is generally not controversial."

Are you kidding me? So obvious and sexist stereotypes are "not controversial"? This notion is widely spread, however it is anything but "not controversial".

PS: I originally considered Race and crime to be included in the AfD, however article is valid as different ethnic groups find themselves in different circumstances, so I decided against it. The "sex and crime" article is insalvageable and unsupportable by respectable sources, however.
 * +Hexagon1 (t) 01:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * PS: Please don't consider the extensiveness of the articles as a measure of quality. Mein Kampf has 720 pages. +Hexagon1 (t) 01:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The Discussion

 * Delete per the reasons I outlined above. +Hexagon1 (t) 01:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose for bundled nomination. Every topic has its own merits. Just like you decided that Race and crime is OK, some other people may like some other article and dislike the third one. Since I see you are not a lazy person (writing such long nomination), go ahead and list each one separately, providing individual arguments for each article. `'mikkanarxi 01:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The main reason I bundled them together as these are the articles that in their current state are insalvagable and would have to be rewritten from scratch. +Hexagon1 (t) 01:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Bundling the nominations is inappropriate. Besides that, the subjects of these articles are notable and widely discussed in the many verifiable and reliable sources presented in the articles. This nomination states that one point of view is overrepresented in these articles. The solution is not to demand deletion of the articles, but instead to edit boldly and add reliable sources to better represent the other viewpoint. I see some cites to scientists who are indeed respected. Content disputes belong on the talk pages of the articlesn not at a deletion debate. A report from the U.S. Justice Department that says more men than women are in jail is prety non-controversial, as are many of the other disputed views. Edison 01:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. A lack of neutrality is insufficient for deletion and it is absurd to claim these issues are non-notable. --Davril2020 01:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * A NPOV notice has been on that page for ages, however I have yet to see any improvement. +Hexagon1 (t) 01:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Have you thought of addressing you problems with POV content yourself? WJBscribe 02:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Obviously does not meet criteria for deletion. In addition, your appraisal of the neutrality of these article is mistaken; however, this is not the correct space for a debate about neutrality. --Rikurzhen 01:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Important topics, extensively referenced. Definitely notable. Problems with neutrality etc. should be addressed by editing the page or discussing such changes on its talk page. WJBscribe 02:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Important and controversial subjects for which wikipedia needs to maintain articles. I feel the articles cite respected sources. alleged bias not grounds for deletion Romper 02:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)romperRomper 02:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - you decided to allow Race_and_crime because "different ethnic groups find themselves in different circumstances - so you are of the opinion that men and women do not find themselves in different circumstances as well? Extremely important, controversial, and notable subjects. The articles are well sourced and any WP:POV issues can be remedied with a POV-Check template. Please see NPOV_dispute for the proper course of action. -- wtfunkymonkey 02:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Stop mass AfD nominating. The one which should be deleted won't be because you decided to nominate 3 others along with it, and anyone starting a seperate AfD for it will get "Speedy close this, it just had a nomination!" -Amarkov blahedits 02:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Sex and Intelligence I have no comment on the others. Generally I strongly oppose Wikipedia articles drawing conclusions, this article seems to consider and discuss several phenomenon and draw two possible (if diametrically opposed) conclusions.  It is therefore an essay, not an encyclopedia article.  If this article were to justifiably exist, it would need to take a completely different angle by explaining what the term 'sex and intelligence' refers to, some of the important people who have discussed the matter and some of the history around any affect it may have had on society, not provide information about brain size, IQ etc. and debate the validity of these arguments.  As it stands it's a hopeless cause, it should be deleted and could be later recreated into an encyclopedia article.  •E l om i s•      02:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - A historical account of "sex and intelligence" would be interesting, but the current article is written in terms of the science. This topic is notable and not simply OR -- it's been frequently in the news lately . --Rikurzhen 02:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment- the Race and Intelligence article was nominated for deletion a year ago and survived with overwhelming support. See [] for last year's discussion.
 * whoops, forgot to identify self -Emiao
 * Strong Keep. Numerous reasons to keep have already been given. I would agree that the articles all need substantial rewrites to address both POV and encyclopedic entry issues. POV should be addressed in a clear manner at the beginning of the articles. While I disagree with sexist or racist conclusions that these articles might imply, deletion is not a solution. These should be addressed by editing the page or discussing such changes on its talk page. MrLou 04:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Anything with this much research deserves to be kept no matter how "sexist" one may believe it to be. If it's a proven point then it's valid. It doesn't mean that all of one group is like this, just that on average that's the fact. Bifgis 04:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep NPOV is a clean-up issue, not a delete issue. There is no reason why an article with these titles should not exist at Wikipedia.  If the writing is bad, FIX IT.  --Jayron 32  04:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Yes, many of the articles are "POV in emphasis", for example Race and intelligence (Accusations of bias) is a POV fork attacking the Pioneer fund.  However, the subject is absolutely legitimate, many respectable scientists have lamented the fact that governments don't fund this research & leave all the funding up to people like the Pioneer fund instead, but that position isn't even mentioned.  Where POV forks exist as subpages just merge teh content back into the main article and create a redirect.  JeffBurdges 07:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Cleanup sure, but delete? No.
 * keep The only reason that you would need AfD for POV issues is if the topic is fundamentally POV. This isn't.  You can stub it down to the NPOV facts and ruthlessly remove any problematic statements from the article without ever setting foot here.  You say it needs to be rewritten from scrath: Ok, go ahead and do it.  You don't need to take it to AfD first. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 09:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Strongly agree that the articles have a history of POV bias, but I believe we can work those out, and that we are moving in that direction. --JereKrischel 11:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - Should be unbundled if deletion should be considered. I agree with the others who have said that editing the articles to create WP:NPOV would be the better choice. --Willscrlt 12:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Allegations of bias are not enough ground for deletion, especially in comprehensive articles such as these. TSO1D 14:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, needs cleanup, not deletion. This is an encyclopedic topic, it needs to NPOVised and the article will be fine. Ter e nce Ong 15:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. THis is an NPOV issue, not a question of whether these topics merit encyclopedia articles.  delldot | talk 21:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep the articles as a concept. Comparisons of gender/race and crime have been long established and the topic is notable. I wont' speak to the actual quality of the articles. ArmAndLeg 21:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * AfD is not the means of curing even a likely WP:NPOV defect in an article, and bulk nominations can be especially ineffective. Keep by default, with considering the merits of the individual articles. -- danntm T C 23:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep I agree if the writing is bad, FIX-IT. The quantity and quality of the references is one of the strongest points of the article, and if the person wanting to put up on debate the quality of these sources can put up other qualifying data in opposition, that data (writing & references) can go in another section of the same article, under the same disputed name.  --Randklevd 04:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep all. Discussion of these topics should be out in the open, articles look even handed, what's the problem?  Puppy Mill 03:17, 4 December 2006 (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.