Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rushton's ordering of the human races


 * 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 of the debate was no consensus to keep. Merge and delete. --Ezeu 09:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Rushton's ordering of the human races
POV fork Pete.Hurd 21:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * nominator comment This article was created as a POV fork, it replicated and whitewashed material in J. Philippe Rushton by information suppressing (section 8.3 in NPOV_tutorial) all views critical of the theory. While recent edits have gone some way towards restoring POV balance, the edits also have come directly from the J. Philippe Rushton page.  This page is either a POV fork, or a replication of J. Philippe Rushton.  Recommend merging any unique material into J. Philippe Rushton and deleting Rushton's ordering of the human races. (Note article creator has added similar information to at least one other page and defended such information suppression/whitewashing with the comment "It's your job to add in the counterarguments" ). Pete.Hurd 21:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete ---|Newyorktimescrossword 02:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)|
 * Delete As per Pete.Hurd's summary.  Unnecessary repetition of pseudoscience.  --Plumbago 15:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - Wikipedia does not have a scientific point of view. Being pseudoscience is not grounds for deletion. -- Petri Krohn 19:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * comment deleting this article will leave the all the material intact in the J. Philippe Rushton article, and I suggest cannot therefore be characterized as censorship (should this be what you are implying). - Best Regards, Pete.Hurd 19:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOR and WP:POVFORK. Stifle (talk) 14:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This article is not original research. It is a discussion of Rushton's research.  It is also not a POV fork, but an article spinoff created because there is not enough space on Rushton's page to hold a fuller discussion of this theory.   Dd2 02:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Odd then that in the three months and 20+ edits since you created this article on an exceptionally controversial, and very widely criticised theory, that you havn't seen fit to add any mention of anything critical about it at all. The full discussion is on Rushton's page. Pete.Hurd 16:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article was not created as a POV fork, but rather as a spinoff article because there is not enough space on Rushton's page to hold a fuller discussion of this theory. Dd2 02:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. If any material is non-duplicative, merge back to J. Philippe Rushton, but it seems little is.  LotLE × talk  18:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge back if there's room for it. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  11:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Support proposal to merge and delete as per nominator. - User:Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:26, 12 May 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.