Deletion of Biology and political orientation

Comment: as per . This is starting to get into the territory of a specific essay rather than an encyclopedia article. Might be suitable as part of coverage in another topic
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTCASE)

Comment: per the concerns of .  I'm sure an actual valid encyclopedia article ''could'' be written on this topic, however, this article would need to be completely rewritten to become so.  Per , sometimes it is a lot easier to just delete and start over from scratch rather than trying to improve an article that would need to be completely rewritten
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH||WP:TNT)

Comment: There is a synthesis problem, although not one normally considered to be part of .  The assertion that all these papers are in the same topic is a unique synthesis, even if some (many, most) of the papers, are misinterpreted by AO
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTHESIS)

Comment: A recent (28 May 2012) issue of ''Political Psychology'' states that "...over the last several decades, research incorporating neurobiological approaches has reached into the core of human behavior and remains central to issues of enduring concern in political psychology... The majority if not all of the critical work in this area has been conducted outside our own field of inquiry with little if any input from our disciplinary brethren.  ("The Political Psychology of Biology, Genetics, and Behavior", 28 May 2012)http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2012.00901.x/full  IOW words it is only as recently as the end of last month that anyone (except Wikipedia editors) have attempted to gather together unrelated studies in the hope that a new field of study will emerge.  While this may happen, per  it is too early to write a coherent article
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTALBALL)

Comment: A notable topic with coverage in mainstream media and scientific journals. Some people arguing for deletion are taking a very tendentious line, refusing to provide clear statements of what is wrong with the article, and comments above indicate that this AfD is based on a dispute over article content.  AfD is not the place to resolve disputes over article content.  If a topic is notable, it should stay unless people can demonstrate that the article content is entirely worthless and unsalvageable.  Some of the content is a bit unclear or jargony, but it aims at |NPOV, and I can understand it even if certain people can't
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)