Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Height 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 keep. Stifle (talk) 15:06, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Height and intelligence

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable topic. For the most part this is just a hodgepodge of primary sources lumped together using editor synthesis. Phrases like: "several epidemological studies...", "A recent study ...", "Studies of ...", "Studies have ...", "A large study ...", etc, make it clear that wikipedia editors are the ones attempting to do a review here, instead of qualified researchers. Searches on google scholar and other venues only turn up primary sources and passing mentions. aprock (talk) 04:33, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A review of the historic talk page discussion indicates that concerns about the notability of this topic have persisted over many years. aprock (talk) 04:36, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any encyclopedic can be merged into human height. aprock (talk) 04:38, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - any notable info can be found in human height. Topic by itself is not notable. Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The human height article does not currently use the word intelligence at all. Moving this content there would require us to keep the content per our editing policy. See below for a detailed rebuttal of the assertion that the topic is not notable. Andrew (talk) 18:30, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Heritability of IQ. The subject is notable, but it is too narrow an interest to warrant an independent article.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:32, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well-structured article on mildly interesting topic. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:42, 14 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep The numerous sources demonstrate that the topic is, in fact, notable. Papers such as On the sources of the height–intelligence correlation are not primary sources. Andrew (talk) 10:36, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The paper you list is certainly a primary source. Did you read the abstract? aprock (talk) 15:11, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the entire paper. It references and draws upon the work of numerous researchers and is analytical in nature. It is secondary in nature per WP:SECONDARY, "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources.". Q.E.D. Andrew (talk) 18:08, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your interpretation of secondary source is not correct. While the source does indeed refer to prior work, it is not a review article, but is a research article presenting new conclusions. aprock (talk) 04:56, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A review would be tertiary as it would summarise other sources. The paper in question starts by making such a literature review in its detailed introduction. The paper is respectable and scholarly and so seems quite suitable for our use. Andrew (talk) 08:27, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A two paragraph introduction listing prior work in an academic research paper is hardly enough to establish notability. aprock (talk) 08:09, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That source satisfies WP:SIGCOV and is just one example. The article in question has 22 sources which are ample to demonstrate notability. And here's another five sources. Such extensive coverage makes the topic quite notable by our standards. Andrew (talk) 18:30, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep merging to Heritability of IQ is a bad idea without better empirical evidence examining the relationship, there is enough handwave over there already. Pete.Hurd (talk) 19:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - poor amalgamation of sources with no synopsis of the information. This may be an interesting topic but this is not written in an encyclopedic fashion. If the author would stick with just the facts, this would not be much of an article.Heyinternetman (talk) 01:07, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I clicked the link to the government website and read through it. [1] There are a lot of studies about this. Common sense though, if you are tall you don't get bullied, so you are able to study and have confidence. Otherwise you just play dumb and don't bring attention towards yourself. Dream Focus 19:05, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, part of me thinks this is some subtle commentary on the idiocy surrounding the Race and intelligence article, but I must concede that this has been the topic of scholarly research over a period of time, and the sources do support having an article on the topic. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:00, 22 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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.