Deletion of Race and intelligence (4th nomination)

Comment: Whether a subject is controversial or not is of relevance to keeping an article, Wikipedia does not .  Given that the subject is something commonly debated in academia and public, it is clearly notable and easily satisfying , therefore it should be kept. If there is any flaws in the article, you can try to fix an article for any perceived flaws, but I frankly can't see any issue with  or  in the article apart from the nominator not liking the article.  Many of the points raised (e.g. whether race or its relation to intelligence are valid concepts) simply have no relevance on whether to delete the article or not, and trying to raise those issues would make it seem like they viewed it in a skewed perspective and trying to force a POV
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CENSOR||WP:GNG||WP:UNDUE||WP:NPOV)

Comment: Many of the sources flatly fail  per the authors, which creates a completely  and  article. We have other articles that are better at dealing with this topic, like Pioneer Fund and History of the race and intelligence controversy among others mentioned here
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:UNDUE||WP:POV)

Comment: per nom and all above. Unencyclopedic and harmful to the project. The  and  violations are baked in by the title. Unclear that there ever ''could'' be an appropriate article at this title even in theory, and after all these years it's pretty clear that there never ''would'' be one. Support either salting or redirecting to scientific racism
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE||WP:NPOV)

Comment: No valid deletion rationale has been presented. The topic has multiple reliable secondary sources discussing it, and squarely it. It obviously passes . It is not a fork, because Scientific racism is a different but related topic. Merely being related does not a fork make. And, it makes no sense to have a "history of" article about a topic for which we do not have an article. Whether the "history of" article and this one should be merged, and/or this one has undue weight, are not AfD matters (|deletion is not cleanup). Primary sources, old sources, and sources from fringe journals or authors are strong candidates for cutting if these are being treated as authoritative
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NOTCLEANUP)

Comment: Wikipedia's primary inclusion criteria is , and it is easy to establish that thousands of sources over centuries feature this topic as a subject. Wikipedia has not established standard rationales for deleting controversial articles like this one which pass the inclusion criteria. I am not opposed to adopting deletion rationales, but in this case, I prefer to not entertain the deletion argument because it does not seem mindful of the costs of deletion. This is a subject established as a social and cultural interest. This article is among Wikipedia's top 0.1% of articles by popularity. Deleting this article would delete the logs of discussion about presenting this topic, and those logs are probably the equivalent of about 1000 pages of paper text of moderated mostly civil discussion. I recognize that the group of people most likely to obsess over this topic are most likely to be hatemongers, and I do not wish to tolerate misconduct. At the same time, I fail to recognize how deleting this article is going to improve public discourse and understanding on this popular topic
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: per {{noping|PaleoNeonate}} and . Once deleted, redirect into the history article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT)

Comment: Better coverage at history of the race and intelligence controversy and redundant with scientific racism (and a  of it).  Also a time sink to the project because of its confused scope.  Notable? Yes, that's why we have those other articles already and this doesn't address the fork issue
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK)

Comment: As unsavory as many find the topic, it is a significant academic topic of discussion and is not the topic of scientific racism, although there is overlap. Nor is it just a historical topic. And  is clear about the following: "'''Articles on distinct but related topics may well contain a significant amount of information in common with one another.  This does not make either of the two articles a content fork.''' ... Further, in encyclopedias it is perfectly proper to have separate articles for each '''different''' definition of a ''term''; unlike dictionaries, a single encyclopedia article covers a ''topic'', not a ''term''. (''cf.'' Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary)." If there is too much overlap, trim. Use ummary style. fD is not cleanup
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:RELAR||WP:S||WP:A)

Comment: per Flyer22 Frozen. This  deletion-seeking (ie censorship) of controversial if not painful subject matters is dangerous and unproductive
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: I encourage those !voting to keep to review this article's sources, specifically their age. The article cites many studies which are out-of-date, and fail  AGE. We are using old sources to misrepresent the modern academic consensus, which is not appropriate for many reasons. This article fails to summarize modern secondary source, instead citing obscure primary sources without appropriate distance. This information is historically important, and with context might be useful at History of the race and intelligence controversy. This article, however, purports to explain the topic at large, including the modern consensus. Hopefully everyone here is aware that genetics has advanced considerably in recent decades, regardless of how these older works were seen at the time. If your argument is that the article should be kept because the topic is covered by sources, then the article is '''not''' representing these sources in an encyclopedic fashion. Other articles already do a better job of summarizing sources, so this one has been made superfluous, at best
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: This is a very fundamental topic about the human condition and it's absurd to not have a high level article about it. The other articles suggested, from History of the race and intelligence controversy to Scientific racism are different topics. In fact, History of the race and intelligence controversy is properly a linked subsection of Race and Intelligence. This topic is highly notable and  applies even to articles to some find distasteful or that are hard to come to consensus on
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTCENSORED)

Comment: All the delete !votes above seem utterly absurd and when I first saw that this article had been AFD'd, I was shocked--even more so when I saw it was a serious nomination not made by a bad-faith troll (no offense to Sirfurboy). This is a (very) notable topic, and the mere existence of this page does not constitute endorsing any specific perspective on said topic. If the title was "Black people are genetically stupid" or "Race causes IQ" then that would be another matter. We need to ensure that this article keeps existing and is written in accordance with  and , but it would be a very bad idea to delete the central article on this widely-discussed topic, which discusses the topic in great detail in a single place, and split off material into separate articles only tangentially related to it. I would, however, be potentially OK with renaming this article if other editors object to the title (which seems completely fine to me; a title "X and Y" is ''not'' tantamount to an endorsement of any sort of causal connection between X and Y
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE||WP:UNDUE)

Comment: The article passes  (it is very notable with a very large body of research attention given to it and many books written, many of which are well referenced in the article), it also passes . The delete votes seem weak to me, but understandable as this article is controversial, offensive to some, and attracts drama, and these seem to be the reasons behind the delete votes — but Wikipedia is OTCENSORED. I am not convinced the article’s existence is undue given it passes . Further, if this article is deleted then people interested, even with good intentions, will search out other sources of information on this topic which will likely lead to exposure to heavily biased extremist white supremacy websites: why not let those interested have access to a much more balanced summary of academic debate and evidence on Wikipedia? Finally, many Wikipedia sub articles depend, to varying degrees, on the existence of this article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:V||WP:NOTCENSORED||WP:N)

Comment: I think the nomination and the above !votes for deletion make a good  argument. Sometimes, there's just no practical way to write a good article in a given spot, and the best thing to do for the community is to drop the dead weight. "Lots of people have discussed the topic" is adequately answered by "redirects are cheap
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT)

Comment: The title suggests that there's a causal connection between someone's race and intelligence, a claim that contradicts scientific consensus. Perhaps because of the title, the article is a magnet for people who wish to use Wikipedia to give credence to sources that push scientific racism. The article was mentioned by the Southern Poverty Law Center as an example of bias on Wikipedia, caused by the dominance of white male Americans among active editors and by the growth of the alt-right in America. Note that the article Scientific racism, which covers the topic, is compliant with  and  and has none of these problems
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:FRINGE)