Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sex and intelligence

Sex and intelligence

Does this topic really deserve an article of its own? I think it should either be deleted or merged with another article about sexism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by James Hetfield (talk • contribs)

Delete per above James Hetfield (talk · contribs)

Next time, just put your signature after your deletion argument. There's no need to say this twice. Mister.Manticore 15:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as long as we have Race and intelligence we ought to have this too. The article needs to be expanded to inculde more information on sexism. futurebird 21:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 15:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of sexuality and gender-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 15:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a resonable topic, encyclopedic and meeting article attribution requirements while not meeting the deletion criteria in any way. NeoFreak 16:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Definitely controversial subject, deletion reeks of censorship. There are plenty of sources that could be included. There are other ways of dealing with controversial subjects on Wikipedia than deleting them. This is one subject that has had a great impact on society apart from sexism.--Parsleyjones 17:51, 9 March 2007
- "Deletion" does not "reek of censorship" since nobody is proposing we delete the articles of all the researchers and their work. Usedup 00:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Individuals like us can never write a good non-bias article on something like this. Get rid of Race and Intelligence while you're at it. Anyone wanting to look up that information has way more reliable collections of information to read than a poorly-written and potentially bias-ridden wikipedia article. Usedup 18:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If we all took that attitude, there wouldn't be a wikipedia. The entire thing is created by "individuals like us". exolon 21:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree, although it still needs to be shown that the wikipedia can make this kind of content work. It's up to us to do that work. futurebird 22:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)][reply]
    - An article like this needs expert attention, which most wikipedians don't have. There is no point of quibbing over this article when most of its points can be well covered in the biographies of researchers on the matter, like Richard Lynn etc. Usedup 00:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm afraid I must disagree, since there is a wide gulf between what a researcher produces and the subject itself. Especially when there's more than one researcher. Besides, content disputes are not grounds for deletion. Mister.Manticore 04:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But there shouldn't be a big gulf between what a researcher says and what we report. Hence, it is perfectly fine. "content disputes are not grounds for deletion" No idea what that was suppose to mean or prove. Usedup 05:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, if a notable researcher says something, it would behoove Wikipedia to include that information. I don't see this as a real problem with Wikipedia, given that many times information is added within moments of being reported. Some people actually have trouble with that, thinking it's too quick. But anyway, content disputes are not grounds for deletion means exactly what it means. If there is a dispute as to the actual content of a page (as compared to disagreement over whether the subject of a page is encyclopedic or not), then the proper form to resolve those disputes is not through the deletion of an article. Perhaps you need to review the deletion policyand the guide to deletion so you can understand the difference better. You might also wish to review the AFD of the Daniel Brandt article, to see some responses as to why the mere trouble of editing an article is not convincing as grounds to delete. Mister.Manticore 15:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hope I've helped you understand why your argument here is not persuasive. Mister.Manticore 15:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article has nothing do with sexism. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Gender and intelligence as that name is less confusing than the current one. Otherwise keep. The subject itself is quite distinct from sexism and it's completely possible for us to write this article. Note that being difficult to write is not a grounds for deletion. Mister.Manticore 03:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' and possibly move to Gender and ... , which is closer to the intended meaning. DGG 03:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]