Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement? (2nd nomination)

How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?
• Articles for deletion/How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement? (2nd nomination)

How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

aprock (talk) suggests [1] that this article should be deleted because of issues related to notability and because it is a POV fork. Yfever (talk) 00:41, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. I nominated this article at Aprock's suggestion, but my personal opinion is that this article should be kept. (Full disclosure: I have added a majority of the content to the article.) Aprock raises two issues: Notability and POV fork. With regard to notability, I have (after Aprock's comment) added a reliable source to the article which notes, correctly in my view, that the article is "the most controversial article in the history of American psychology." As the many references that I have added substantiate, there is no doubt that this was a hugely controversial article. (My personal opinion is that the article was flawed as well, but I don't think that truth/falseness enters into a judgment about notability.) With regard to a POV fork, I don't really understand that complaint. I can see that the topic of race/IQ/Jensen is a contentious topic at Wikipedia. But my purpose in creating this article is simply to create this article. I don't see it as a fork from anything else. And I would certainly love it if other people would contribute to the article as well! If anyone has any suggestions for how to improve the article, assuming it is kept, please let me know on the talk page. Yfever (talk) 21:01, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment—At a superficial level, based on the references, this article appears to satisfy the notability requirements. If this is a PoV fork, where is it a fork from? It looks to be an orphan. Regards, RJH (talk) 21:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete per the previous AfD. I suggest that anyone interested in commenting at this AfD review the previous one, as the discussion there is entirely relevant to this version of the article. The forking issues here amount to replicating content already covered extensively and in fuller context at Arthur Jensen#IQ_and_academic_achievement and History of the race and intelligence controversy#1960-1980. Standalone articles such as these are ripe for presenting the work without sufficient context. Already, despite the fact that the work is called "most controversial", there is no substantive discussion of this controvery. aprock (talk) 04:43, 28 December 2011 (UTC)