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 Deleted by User:Slrubenstein, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Race and intelligence in the United States[edit]

Race and intelligence in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

The article is a POV-fork of Race and intelligence. I also see a little of WP:POINT. We have had much debate at R&I and I think that the pressure of feeling like we are not moving forward made this editor try this way. In addition to these points, the article is a WP:SYN at best, a quick glance at the sources reveal that they are outdated and not US-centered. Which brings to the final point, the article is US centered when there is no reason for it to be. For the ongoing discussions at R&I see: Talk:Race_and_intelligence#Proposal:_Let.27s_not_have_an_article_on__.22Race_and_intelligence.22
Talk:Race_and_intelligence#Paper_chains
Talk:Race_and_intelligence#New_Ideas
Talk:Race_and_intelligence#Consensus.3F

and what fuels me to believe this is a case of WP:POINT:
Talk:Race_and_intelligence#Race_and_intelligence_in_the_United_States

What do you think? Brusegadi (talk) 06:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Hesitant Delete as I think there COULD be an article on this topic related to U.S. views. However looking over this it seems like the protected nature of the 'general' page and the problems there is what caused someone to create a U.S. based one which starts out the same way. I'm not sure it's to prove a WP:POINT but I think the issues should be dealt with on the main page before spreading the (ahem) love around to new little seedling articles. Epthorn (talk) 07:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - You are right. More than WP:POINT I think there is a tendency for the dispute pot to spill a bunch of new articles if it gets too hot. Brusegadi (talk) 09:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete POV fork. We don't need another 20 articles on this subject. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 08:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete POV fork. Per Ryan and Brusegadi. futurebird (talk) 12:12, 10 December 2007 (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.