Deletion of Snyderman and Rothman (study) (2nd nomination)

Comment: There are several problematic claims in the description above. First, how is this article an "advocacy paper?" The paper was originally published in the (highly regarded) The American Psychologist|American Psychologist. I can't recall ever seeing an "advocacy paper" published in this journal. Second, is there a problem with a "book advocating a point of view?" Any book worth reading (or worth writing a Wikipedia article about) advocated a point of view. Third, the "article exists as a POV fork." From what article is this a POV fork? I have followed much of the discussions on the Talk page and can't recall that claim ever having been made. Please tell us what article (that existed before this article) is the other side of the fork. Fourth, what POV is this article advocating? (And why not simply fix the article itself?) Fifth, the study/book is obviously |notable: the necessary "multiple, non-trivial2 published works whose sources are independent of the book itself" are listed in the references to the article itself
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BK)

Comment: Firstly the title "Snyderman and Rothman (study)" includes the authors names and not the title of the article or the book. The article published in the journal "''American Psychologist''" is titled "''http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ351789&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ351789 Survey of Expert Opinion on Intelligence and Aptitude Testing''" and the book is titled "http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=DAYO1Nggh3EC The IQ Controversy, the Media and Public Policy". Based on , I would think that if the article were to be kept, it should be given either of the two names and not the present name. If the title of the book were to be chosen then the article should discuss the entire book, and not just the survey portion. If the title for the survey article is chosen, then the question then becomes does this single article deserve a standalone article. Such publications are not usually given standalone articles but can be cited in other articles. This is not a problem for books as they often have standalone pages. Many will argue that this study has been cited a number of other articles. In general Wikipedians who patrol the AFD tend to be more open to studies if they have been cited. At the same time, much of the material from the survey that isn't about race is not mentioned in the article. This does give the article the appearance of a POV fork
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Article titles (WP:NAME)

Comment: The article satisfies the  criteria, because it has been the "subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience", as anyone can ascertain from Google Scholarhttp://scholar.google.fi/scholar?cites=16865081919986717421&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=2000&hl=enhttp://scholar.google.fi/scholar?hl=en&q=%22The+IQ+Controversy%2C+the+Media+and+Public+Policy%22&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0. It is not a POV fork of anything, it's an independent subject. There's been a good deal of work done on the article, and a variety of viewpoints from secondary sources are present in it
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NB)

Comment: These seems to be some confusion as to what a |POV fork is. Let me quote the guideline
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK)