Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IQs in various European countries

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 delete, who I find to present a much more compelling argument and obtain concensus with this well-based argument as compared to the people advocating keep. - Daniel.Bryant 11:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IQs in various European countries

ATTENTION! If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page or group of pages is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing! Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}

This page was tagged for speedy deletion by Usedup (talk • contribs) with the reason: "Page created for WP:POINT reasons (noting the mixture of several studies in order to stress advantages). Pretty much identical materials already covered on articles of Race and Intelligence and IQ." An anon repeatedly removed the speedy tag, and the user requested semi-protection at WP:RFPP. I felt the article was not something we could speedy delete, so I'm bringing it to AfD for a community consensus. Nishkid64 18:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• Strong delete Material is redundant from Race and Intelligence and its sources have been widely criticized. Presenting these as established fact is strictly pseudo-science.--Ramdrake 18:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, this is not an encyclopedia article. It isn't neutral, it's never going to be, and the sources don't look too reliable, either. Picaroon 19:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as funny as the topic is.--Sefringle 00:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete unless heavily sourced. Cbrown1023 talk 01:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, it is sourced but it is only sourced with two completely independent studies selected specifically for highlighting advantages. Usedup 15:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete The list was obviously created to make a point. There is no other reason to compare these completely separate studies and rank them in the way that is being done. Usedup 02:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep This article have been created because the lack of specifing among europeans in Race and Intelligence. So I do not feel that article cover this one. Whites and also Europeans are a large group. Why shall for example ashkenazi jews have an advantage of been divided from other jews and groups, while europeans/whites, blacks/africans, etc have not this advantage? Recently there was a discussion about the article Ashkenazi intelligence. That article was obviously created to make a point and for highlightning advantages, like IQs in various European countries have been critized for. That article "survived". Another thing about Ashkenazi intelligence is that 20 discussed/voted for deleting that article, while 15 discussed for keeping that article. Still the administration (read: Cbrown1023) choosed to keep it. Why shall we have disscussions/voting about the articles, if he and the administration already have decided what the results will be after the discussions??? This discussion about IQs in various European countries feels therefore hope- and pointless. Cangbush— Cangbush (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Cangbush, just because Ashkenazi Intelligence made it through, and you're not very happy about it, please don't nominate this article for keep because you feel there should be reciprocation with that article. The Ashkenazi Intelligence page is primarily about a study, this is a complete and utter mix of studies. It's almost like our very own original research because it is comparing studies that no professional has compared, probably for a reason. I'm imploring you to reconsider based on the article's own merit. Usedup 00:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep There exist 3 sources on this subject, so it is some sourced. Vinko Buj and two of Richard Lynn, the one mentioned in this article and the other is the one from IQ and the wealth of countries. I think still that the one of Richard Lynn in this article is more actual for the article, since the studies there are newer/up-to-date scientific studies from Lynn. Since the average IQ is higher among some nations in the newer studies: it feels maybe more provocating for some people. The Ashkennazi Intelligence article is not heavily sourced. There is only one bigger studies on the subject. The others have very small numbers of testpersons.SriKorange— Mannfred5 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep I can read here that the sources have been widely criticezed. Well there is an article called IQ and the Wealth of Nations inside here. If Richard Lynn is reliable there; He should be reliable when he do new studies too. Or have he got Alzheimers, so he has become lesser reliable? Molo5— Molo5 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep The Lynn and Buj tables are some similar, when it comes to ranking. The article is sourced, but there is few studies on this subject. Kavi— Kavitafrommadurai (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Strong keep as per above arguments. Peace. Manzhivago. — Manzhivago (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep per above mr.M— Mannfredmannfred (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Strong Keep. I see that the table and article have been expanded and added with two new sources TODAY. The article is sourced and it is a bit pitty if this article was only here for one day. Suganthi— SuganthinifromJaffna (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep Per Suganthi (above). French_Guyana— Helenparis444 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Strong keep. *This article is a lot better article and better sourced article than the other articles I have seen under -articles for deletion. *It is sourced with 4 independent sources + the external links. It is therefore a lot more serious than other -articles for deletion. *It is also a lot better than many, many other articles, which NOT are -articles for deletion. Ramduke— Ramduke (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • This is unbelievable. Can nobody see that the user who created this article was obviously trying to make a point by selecting these IQ studies? This entire article is laced with a WP:POINT upbringing. There is no encyclopedic reason for comparing completely separate IQ studies like this. Usedup 00:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Note to closing admin: Sockpuppetry involved in all keep votes. I have tagged accordingly, and blocked all users. They have also done the same in other AfDs. Nishkid64 01:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete POV fork, pseudo-sciency. Mak (talk) 01:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - an unsourced OR-synthesis content-forking indiscriminate wreck. And nothing worthwhile is ever defended by a sockpuppet army, because it doesn't have to be. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 15:43, 23 February 2007 (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.