Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Race and intelligence (4th nomination)

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.

Keep.

This AfD had a high level of participation, including some participation drawn by offwiki canvassing. We do not believe this canvassing had any impact on the final consensus.

There is broad consensus among editors that this topic is notable, and that information about this topic can be verified. A minority view, among some editors supporting deletion, disputed notability because race is considered by many scholars to be a social construct. There is also broad consensus among editors, that there are a variety of content issues with the article. Finally, there is a consensus that the article can and has been used to promote white supremacy positions. However, this kind of consensus is reflective of a content problem, and content problems are not a policy based reason for deletion.

The policy-supported reason for deletion offered by some participants is that this article is a content fork. However, this view did not have consensus. Some editors suggested that based on the history of this article, other articles should be considered a fork of this. Other editors suggesting that owing to the size of the scope of this topic, that this would be a candidate for splitting into multiple articles. For some, the content issues rose to the level of suggesting WP:TNT, which, while an essay, is sometimes used as a basis for deletion in AfD discussions. However, there is not consensus for this action. Nor is it clear that there is consensus that the content issues identified would be solved by a TNT delete. It seems likely any rewrite would be subject to the same issues of disruptive editing. There is evidence of this disruption since its nomination for deletion at the beginning of February.

We found that most of the arguments for deletion were not policy-based. Use of non-reliable sources, and non-neutral or fringe content, can be fixed by editing. That outside entities have criticized the article is not a reason for deletion. A title change can be debated and enacted as a normal part of the editorial process. On the other hand, those arguing to keep clearly demonstrated that the topic meets verifiability and notability, which is really all that's needed.

Jointly submitted, Scottywong, Barkeep49, RoySmith 21:47, 29 February 2020 (UTC)