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 Speedy keep. Debresser (talk) 14:12, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

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

This is a controversial claim and the scientific evidence is also non-supportive. wb_admin (talk) 13:20, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Favonian (talk) 14:49, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Favonian (talk) 14:50, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Is there now a different reasoning then the last five AfDs, most of which resulted in a consensus to keep? Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:06, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If this is as much of a rationale as the nominator can supply, I see no reason to reopen a fifth time. Oppose. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep with a Massive Gefilte Fish Slap This is the sixth nomination of this article and consensus is rather clear that the subject is notable, based on the ample reliable and verifiable sources that are explicitly about the topic and would have been discovered if the nominator had either done the due diligence required by WP:BEFORE or had bothered to read the article. I don't believe in the existence of grey aliens, black helicopters or President Donald Trump, but the preponderance of sources on these topics is what establishes notability and the continued existence of those articles. The nominator's excuses for deletion -- that this is a "controversial claim and the scientific evidence is also non-supportive" -- are all efforts at establishing truth, but what we're doing here is confirming notability of the topic. This has every indication of being an improperly formed and bad faith nomination. Alansohn (talk) 15:48, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Yes, it's scientifically impossible for this to be true but that doesn't mean the article should be deleted. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:50, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is notable – see The Genealogical Science, for example. Andrew D. (talk) 18:23, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Silly theory in my opinion (not that anybody asked), but an abundance of reliable sources establish that it's a notable subject for an encyclopedia article. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:49, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Confronting a topic that has survived multiple AfD discussions, it's incumbent on the nominator to explain why things should come out differently this time. Consensus can change, but there needs to be some basis to explain why it should. In the absence of any discussion of the prior discussions, there's just no point to continuing with this one. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:53, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unless we are going to delete such articles as Jewish nose we should not delete this article. Bus stop (talk) 03:32, 24 February 2017 (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.