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. @Actualcpscm: if you want this to improve, let me know. Star Mississippi 14:05, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Genetics and educational attainment[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

An orphan POV-fork of race and intelligence written by an editor whose brief career on Wikipedia led to a siteban after fewer than 2,000 edits, due to persistent disruptive editing adding contrarian content in science topics. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:05, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Biology, and Psychology. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:32, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not just a fork, but from a brief inspection, written to push a particular perspective, and based around the questionable use of the sources cited. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:19, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That was my impression too, but it's only an impression, as I don't have the energy to do a more thorough check. For the moment, therefore, I won't vote, but if I do it will probably be D*l*te. Athel cb (talk) 14:31, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For a blatant example of misuse of a source, consider this statement: ...some parents may choose to prioritize immediate pleasures, like vacations, over setting up a college fund for their child. The source cited ([1]) makes no mention of 'vacations', or 'college funds'. It would have been rather absurd to do so for multiple reasons - not least of which being that the primary data being discussed in the source includes contexts where 'college funds' weren't even a thing. Regardless of the merits of the source itself (it looks to me to be an exercise in begging the question, but as someone with a degree in anthropology, I'm always sceptical about 'genes explain everything' theories) it shouldn't be cited for random made-up shit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:58, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't have the time (nor the inclination) to read this article, but would like to note that "genetics and educational attainment" is a mainstream subject in the field of behavior genetics. The people involved in this research are not racists or involved in race/IQ/genetics "research". I have no opinion on the quality of this work but it most certainly is not a race and intelligence fork. Of course, this research (like any other research) can be (and likely will be) misused/misinterpreted by "race researchers", but that is another matter. --Randykitty (talk) 14:44, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and draftify: I'm probably not equipped to analyze the scientific merits and accuracy of the article content in detail, but that's not necessary here: even if the article is WP:RUBBISH in its current form and highly susceptible to policy violations (like NPOV issues), that does not affect the notability of the subject. AfD discussions are not the right venue for discussing reworking an article, and articles should not be deleted solely on the basis that they're quite bad. As Randykitty mentioned, this is a mainstream field of research (not WP:FRINGE per se), and while the sources in the article might have been misused or misinterpreted to create the current text, they do establish that the subject has been researched, analyzed, and discussed extensively in highly reliable pulications. This is not a matter for AfD, but for the article talk page. Actualcpscm (talk) 15:06, 16 July 2023 (UTC) To address the concerns about the current article content: For the time that this article needs to be reworked to be in compliance with NPOV and other relevant policies, it can be draftified. Actualcpscm (talk) 16:03, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [reply]

Delete The article was created by a blocked user who caused disruption on many articles and has added copyrighted material to their article creations. I am not convinced they wrote this article, this was created with 33,165 bytes of text [2] with no other major edits by them and is unlike their other edits. Something is off here. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:06, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not going through every single reference for this as I don't have time, but I chose one at random and it failed verification. I think TNT applies here, maybe it's a notable article but anything based on this will always be dubious given the other issue is already mentioned. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:21, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. Sources fail verification, as noted above, and some are simply not up to the purpose when it comes to supporting an article like this (e.g., the two "Neuroscience News" items are press releases). A total rewrite would be necessary, presuming that this is even a good title for the topic. XOR'easter (talk) 23:13, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that it is a POVFORK. It's not quite a orphan but close. I can't see any reason to keep this when we already have race and intelligence. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:51, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I just checked the author's global contributions and it looks like they may have made similar articles in other languages, particularly French. It might be worth somebody checking this out. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:58, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Polygenic scores for/genome-wide asssociation studies of educational attainment is a very normal, mainstream field of research. See e.g. the second source in the article. Don't really have any idea what you're talking about regarding race and intelligence. Endwise (talk) 08:36, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since content was created by now-banned editor and is not supported by MEDRS-compliant secondary sources. NightHeron (talk) 01:02, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Snow Close. This one ain't even close, folks. jps (talk) 02:33, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per discussion here and the other AfD. Completely unacceptable. 〜 Festucalex • talk 07:21, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per TNT without prejudice to recreation - no need to keep this article per other voters above, but without prejudice to recreation by someone else, as the topic "genetics and education attainment" is a notable topic with lots of scholarly coverage, e.g. [3], [4], [5], [6], and 67,000 more hits on Google Scholar. Levivich (talk) 18:54, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:TNT but per Levivich, this is a notable subject and not necessarily a POVFORK of Race and Intelligence (although the article asis meets that description). Genetics is not the same as race, not a synonym of race. Race is socially constructed, and genetics are biology (and clinal). Neither is educational attainment the same as intelligence. A page on this subject is possible, but this is not that page. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:47, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't really like the appeals to the creator of the article, as it is the article itself that is up for discussion, but the content and style of the article are completely inadequate. I also don't see much point in draftifying it, as it would have to be rewritten from scratch to pass AfC. Deckkohl (talk) 16:58, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I have not read this article in depth, and I'm neither a scientist nor a professor, but based on other people's perspectives, it's totally unacceptable. There is one thing I find particularly questionable, about how far a child can make in schooling is wholly based off of their parent(s). Also, the article's in-depth analysis is completely off the rails. We already covered this subject with race and academic attainment. HarukaAmaranth (talk) 19:47, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.