Points of interest related to Religion on Wikipedia: Outline –  History –  Portal –  Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Cleanup – Stubs – Assessment – Style

Deletion Sorting Project
( talk) Project page Lists (by ABC) Lists (by topic) Lists (computer-readable) AfD: Today, Yesterday Delsort scripts
v t e

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Religion. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Religion|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions ( prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Religion. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{ transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{ prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Religion/archive

Maria Diana Chapel (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I don't see any sort of notability. 🍗TheNugg eteer🍗 11:01, 30 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Religion, and Philippines. 🍗TheNugg eteer🍗 11:01, 30 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Merge and redirect to Gandara, Samar#Tourism where it's already mentioned with nearly as much information as is in this article. The name of the cemetery is missing, but that's an easy merger. Ladyof Shalott 12:17, 30 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Correction: name of the cemetery is there in a caption. This can just be a redirect as a reasonable search term. Ladyof Shalott 12:22, 30 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:01, 30 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. --- Tito Pao ( talk) 07:17, 31 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Iyke Nathan Uzorma (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

If all of the unsourced claims of supernatural abilities were removed from this article, I'm not sure what would be left. Until recently, this was a redirect to a book but has become the focus of a single purpose editor. Counterfeit Purses ( talk) 21:44, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and Paranormal. Counterfeit Purses ( talk) 21:44, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Nigeria. Netherzone ( talk) 22:59, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:18, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Biographical Information and Publications: Key details about his early life that are supported by verifiable sources such as books can be found online from Google Books. Geswith ( talk) 23:19, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Biographical Information and Publications: Key details about his early life that are supported by verifiable sources such as books can be found online from Google Books and credible news from Nigeria such as Punch newspapers. Geswith ( talk) 23:22, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete - A WP:BEFORE search does not reveal significant coverage in reliable sources. The current sourcing of the article is not enough to meet notability criteria for WP:GNG, WP:NACADEMIC, nor WP:NAUTHOR. The three book citations were all written by him, and about him and are self-published by Xlibris Corporation, not a reliable publisher. One source is a wikipedia mirror wiki (user submitted content) and the "All Christian Quotes" website is also user-submitted content. There is one possible reliable source (Punch) but that is not enough to pass WP standards for notability. The article is WP:PROMO and largely unsourced, it may contain original research or possibly be a COI creation. Netherzone ( talk) 23:36, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete: Completely fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:BASIC. Haven't found a single independent source about him. A7 may apply here because I do not see a credible claim of significance. C F A 💬 23:52, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  these are independent sources.

  kindly check this one:

  • Okeke, Chukwuemeka. (2018). Spiritual Leaders of Modern Africa. African Scholars Press. ISBN 978-978-12345-6-7.
    • Offers insights into the lives and influences of contemporary African spiritual leaders, including Iyke Nathan Uzorma. [Reference to specific pages: p. 102-110 for discussion on Uzorma’s influence.]
  • Nwankwo, Stella. (2021). The Role of Charitable Works in Modern Christianity. Faith and Hope Publications. ISBN 978-987-65432-1-0.
    • Discusses Uzorma’s philanthropic efforts through Mercy Store House. [Reference to specific pages: p. 78-85 for information on his charity work.]
  • Johnson, Elizabeth. (2019). Biographical Profiles of Notable Nigerian Figures. Lagos Publishing House. ISBN 978-978-43210-9-8.
    • Contains a biographical profile of Iyke Nathan Uzorma, including his early life and career. [Reference to specific pages: p. 56-65 for detailed biography.]
  • Adeyemi, Solomon. (2022). Religious Transformations in Nigeria. West African Press. ISBN 978-978-87654-3-2.
    • Examines religious figures and transformations in Nigeria, including Uzorma’s role in the broader context. [Reference to specific pages: p. 90-100 for context on Uzorma’s religious journey.]

  Geswith ( talk) 23:53, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  @ Geswith: How do you know of Iyke Nathan Uzorma? C F A 💬 23:54, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  i have been researching him for a long time. most of his claims have been substantiated by people all over the world. Geswith ( talk) 23:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  @ Geswith, it seems from the portrait of him in the article - your "own work", that you do have some connection to him deeper than just researching him. Please explain. Netherzone ( talk) 02:27, 27 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  @ Geswith, I can't find any of those books in an online search. I tried searching by title, and by author and by ISBN number but came up cold. Could you please provide links so that they can be verified. Thank you. Netherzone ( talk) 01:50, 27 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  @ Netherzone: I don't think these are real books. Look at the ISBNs: "978-978-12345-6-7", "978-987-65432-1-0", "978-978-87654-3-2", "978-978-43210-9-8". I also can't find anything about their publishers. They look like hallucinations by ChatGPT or something similar. C F A 💬 01:55, 27 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  I agree, @ CFA, I could not find any of these publishing houses either. Do you think this is a hoax article or just a lot of AI hallucinations? Netherzone ( talk) 01:58, 27 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  Well, the person seems to exist, but I have no clue if the information is accurate or not because there are no references aside from the "books" above. I imagine the creator has some sort of conflict of interest and most of it is original research. Regardless, it is safe to say they are not notable. C F A 💬 02:04, 27 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  You mean you can't confirm his "encounters with what he describes as advanced extraterrestrial intelligences or angelic beings of light"? Counterfeit Purses ( talk) 02:24, 27 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  sorry for the late response. i will definitely get you the proof you require. Geswith ( talk) 05:48, 27 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete, obviously or per WP:V if I have to provide a rationale. I found this AfD through the academic deletion sorting list so I was curious how in particular he qualified as an academic. I find it interesting that the supposed "St Thomas-a-Becket University, Canterbury, England" that our article claims him to be a professor of has greater evidence of existing in Nigeria than in England. But I suppose that's far from the sketchiest part of this story. — David Eppstein ( talk) 06:18, 27 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete - clear COI here and serious lack of notability. The two universities that he is supposedly associated with don't seem to exist outside of self-published sources about Uzorma himself. There is nothing here to justify a Wikipedia article. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:48, 27 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Not enough WP:SIGCOV from reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. The article is presently undergoing editing, only 1 source remains as of this time, punchng.com, which may be the only source that may have some claim to reliability. Prof.PMarini ( talk) 10:27, 27 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  Punch is listed as generally reliable in Wikipedia:WikiProject Nigeria/Nigerian sources but the article is essentially a long extended quote from the subject; it has no depth of coverage about the subject. — David Eppstein ( talk) 18:33, 27 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete per Netherzone's reasoning. Best, GPL93 ( talk) 16:34, 30 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Jon M. Sweeney (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article appears to be promotional and has been edited extensively by user:Jonmsweeney, user:Jonmsweeney1234 and user:Friedsparrow, all SPA accounts who have also added Sweeney's name to other articles.

Much promo text has been removed since the article was raised at COIN [1], what remains is poorly sourced and it does not seem clear that notability criteria have been met. Axad12 ( talk) 06:54, 31 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 July 31. — ^{cyberbot I} _{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:09, 31 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Christianity, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:40, 31 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Maria Diana Chapel (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I don't see any sort of notability. 🍗TheNugg eteer🍗 11:01, 30 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Religion, and Philippines. 🍗TheNugg eteer🍗 11:01, 30 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Merge and redirect to Gandara, Samar#Tourism where it's already mentioned with nearly as much information as is in this article. The name of the cemetery is missing, but that's an easy merger. Ladyof Shalott 12:17, 30 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Correction: name of the cemetery is there in a caption. This can just be a redirect as a reasonable search term. Ladyof Shalott 12:22, 30 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:01, 30 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. --- Tito Pao ( talk) 07:17, 31 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Knights of St Columba (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Multiple issues. Wikipedia:Notability not established and does not meet guidelines for Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Additional citations needed since 2014. The 5 references are not sufficient to establish notability given that 4 of them coming from the organisation itself. Coldupnorth ( talk) 09:16, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Christianity, and United Kingdom. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:05, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep. I feel WP:BEFORE wasn't performed. With a quick glance, a lot material appears in searches. Have a look at this book, albeit not a perfect WP:RS, gives clear notability indications. [2] is clearly indepth coverage, published by Gill and Macmillan. -- Soman ( talk) 10:16, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  In response, I did a before search for references and Betty's Travel Journals is not even close to sufficient... As for [3] this is the wrong organisation, the Knights of St Columba should not be confused with the Knights of Columbus and Knights of Saint Columbanus which are notable organisations. Coldupnorth ( talk) 10:22, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: England, Scotland, and Wales. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply

DYDW (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG, requires significant coverage (not mentions in passing or inclusion in lists/directories) in multiple independent secondary sources. Dan arndt ( talk) 10:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Companies, and Philippines. Dan arndt ( talk) 10:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:06, 30 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to List of television and radio stations in Metro Cebu This is the only reasonable outcome right now. There are a lot of obvious correlates that to me suggest the sourcing to make this a reasonable article should exist somewhere—the station is more than 35 years old in one of the country's ten largest cities. This is not either a new station or a small-market station, both of which will struggle to generate sufficient coverage. But I do not know if the sourcing to improve this page exists online.
  I am going to use this opportunity to speak directly to the editors who mainly work on Philippine TV and radio pages.
  Read the room and start shoring up the articles that need substantial, independent references to demonstrate passing the GNG, not creating new ones.
  The creation of new pages and drafts in Philippine radio has continued apace. Pages like DYWC-AM are not acceptable as new pages in 2024. The references need to be more than passing mentions, able to sustain significant material for the article.
  Years ago, our practice was that most standalone stations merited articles. That has changed with the 2021 RfC that ratified the GNG as the standard in this field. I am slowly working on creating the conditions (namely list coverage and quality) to cull hundreds of Mexican station pages I created last decade for the same reason; many stations are old enough to have coverage, but newspaper availability is poor, and the pages are stubby. This may be the correct approach in the Philippines. Sammi Brie (she/her •  t • c) 08:21, 30 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to List of television and radio stations in Metro Cebu following Sammi Brie's rationale - can you point me to the RfC you mention, I would have thought that WP:NCORP applies. HighKing ⁺⁺ 11:33, 31 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Prayz Network (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Subject does not have the WP:CORPDEPTH needed for a standalone article. The only sources currently in the article are primary and a search elsewhere didn't come up with anything better. Let'srun ( talk) 21:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Companies, Christianity, and Wisconsin. Let'srun ( talk) 21:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Weak redirect to List of radio stations in Wisconsin: All of the network's stations are in Wisconsin, and all but one of them (that lone exception being the acquisition of a former non-religious station) were built in the early 2010s — radio stations that new almost never get the significant coverage they would have gotten decades ago. A clear remnant of the "if there's FCC licenses involved, there's some level of notability" stance that was finally shut down by this 2021 RfC (a situation made worse if the network technically falls under the stricter NCORP than GNG). The redirect is only really to preserve this article's own redirects at WTPN, WWJC, and WEQS as {{ R to list entry}}s; as "Prayz Network" itself (as opposed to the stations themselves) is not mentioned there, it may be more appropriate to only retarget those particular redirects and delete the article altogether (and to be clear: if it were not for those redirects, this would unambiguously be a delete). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete, do not redirect. The consensus threshold for inclusion for radio station articles is much higher today than it was when I created the article in 2015, and I fully agree with Wcquidditch's assessment of the level of notability of the individual stations. Yet, as Wcquidditch also stated, the article's own redirects could be retargeted separate from "Prayz Network", which itself is not mentioned in "List of radio stations in Wisconsin". Moreover, the network holds a permit for a station in Minnesota, making the list article even less appropriate as a target.-- Tdl1060 ( talk) 19:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Divided between Redirect and Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 28 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete On the basis that it might get listed in both List of radio stations in Minnesota and List of radio stations in Wisconsin. HighKing ⁺⁺ 12:01, 29 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Christian religious leaders: further follow-up required, see Category talk:Religious leaders#Clergy categories

Guru Vandana (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. The article is a dictionary entry. C F A 💬 19:16, 13 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 21:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep: There are several sources that contain significant coverage of this topic: [4] [5] [6]. There are probably more sources that are not in English. Helpful Raccoon ( talk) 21:11, 13 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete: Belongs to wiktionary. No significant coverage of the concept, even in the sources cited above. - Altenmann >talk 22:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mojo Hand ( talk) 21:40, 20 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete. It does look like a simple dictionary entry. No WP:SIGCOV and not much to discuss to develop an encyclopedia article. Prof.PMarini ( talk) 08:06, 22 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep. This article is a dictionary entry at present, but Helpful Raccoon's sources show that it could certainly be expanded beyond that. In the meantime, we might want to redirect this somewhere - if anyone has an idea as to where, I'd be interested to hear it. If we don't come up with a good redirect location, the article should be kept. -- asilvering ( talk) 00:50, 27 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:35, 28 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete: Per nom Lord serious pig 07:09, 28 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Redirect lacks of enough reliable sources to stand alone. Instead, Its content fits well within a broader article about Hindu rituals and the teacher-student relationship in Hinduism. Yakov-kobi ( talk) 15:00, 28 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 July 11#Category:New Christians (conversos), proposed renaming of Category:New Christians (conversos) to either: ALT1 Category:New Christians (conversos) to Category:New Christians (moriscos and conversos) or ALT2 Category:New Christians (conversos) to Category:New Christians (Iberia)

Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

All the problems from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence (2nd nomination) remain. These sources are fringe and mostly unreliable even for basic factual claims, WP:SYNTH is rife, and the conclusions of fringe sources are being misrepresented as mainstream. Grayfell ( talk) 19:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 20:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Is there a way to compare this to the previously deleted articles? I'm curious to see what has changed to allow this article to continue to be reintroduced. Bluethricecreamman ( talk) 00:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

I vote Merge into IQ and race

Also, this article reads like multiple POV-forks in each section. Portions of it seem racist to imply that Jewish people are significantly smarter than anybody else, while others talk about the backlash to a single study. The genetics portion implying intelligence is also racist.

I think I would change my vote if there was more information about this put in besides that one study. Some thoughts:

• Various sociologists in the 80s/90s suggested that the unique background/talmudic studies of some Jewish peoples makes them effective scholars. There were some sociologists who suggested that, as well as Malcolm Gladwell. Not sure exactly if thats true, there is likely a fair bit of back and forth on that as well as a possibly controversial opinion too.
• It could be possible to include information about Model Minority myth in this article.
• Agree large portions of article are WP:SYNTH including the humblebrag about the representation of Jewish people in various roles.

Bluethricecreamman ( talk) 00:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

In case there is any confusion, I changed my vote to Delete discussing with folks below Bluethricecreamman ( talk) 22:40, 20 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Nishidani is right. We need to stop WP:TNT like the past few AfDs, and address the issue head on that we should still avoid WP:PROFRINGE while still recognizing this is clearly notable, even if the sourcing is biased.

IDK if i wanna vote delete or keep at this point. Maybe this article still deserves to be [[WP:TNT}}, but we should try to get to an actual consensus that leads to a real article.

Maybe this should just be called Jewish Intelligence Theory or Jewish Intelligence Stereotype. Bluethricecreamman ( talk) 19:00, 28 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Threw some more sourcing at it. Honestly, still think it should be merged into another appropriate article tho. Bluethricecreamman ( talk) 01:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

It's better, but I don't think that's enough. Citing Lynn as though his garbage studies mean anything, even with qualifications, is still a WP:PROFRINGE issue. As I said back in 2020, if the article only exists to explain why a debunked study is not even wrong, then is should be rewritten to serve that goal. Grayfell ( talk) 01:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

yeah, agreed.

Sidenote, why specifically ashkenazi jewish intelligence, instead of broader jewish intelligence? This article's subject is so strange to me. Bluethricecreamman ( talk) 02:16, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

(a) Sephardim are not, apparently, reported to score as high; (b) seems sensible insofar as "Jewish intelligence" probably makes people think of the Mosad instead, IDK. Biohistorian15 ( talk) 07:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete or merge. Adding enough context to satisfy the requirements of WP:FRINGE would make the article a WP:REDUNDANTFORK of Race and intelligence, but with a shallower pool of sources. The few bits that are specific to Ashkenazi people or Jewish people – Cochran's ideas, Talmud study, the role perceptions of intelligence might play in overall views toward Jewish people – are too scattered to make "Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence" a coherent topic for an encyclopedia article. Jruderman ( talk) 04:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Based on discussions below, I'm not seeing much content here worth summarizing into other articles, nor compelling reasons to include any mention of Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence in most of the related articles. Maybe it's worth a mention in History of the race and intelligence controversy, but even then it would be better to draw from Henry Harpending's section or Bret Stephens's section rather than from this article. As a result, I am shifting my stance to simply "delete". Jruderman ( talk) 08:06, 21 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep There is a vast body of literature that discusses the special role of jewry as a (proto-)object of racism; there also is a large body of research (Cochrane, Glad...) concerning purported (self-)selection trends in historical Jewish populations; there is also a vast body of literature concerning their psychometrics. Biohistorian15 ( talk) 07:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  Furthermore, massive removals of text on the same day this AFD was opened [7] suggest either possible tag teaming or, at least, a problematic attitude on the part of Bluethricecreamman and Grayfell. (I will archive this page privately to document such practices in any case). Biohistorian15 ( talk) 07:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete or merge. I agree with Jruderman here. So much more context is needed for this page to meet the requirements of fringe. Given how frequently this page comes up, I think we should consider salting the page or creating a redirect and locking edits for non-admin. Mason ( talk) 14:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

One question: how would it work if, for example, I myself eventually had an article that met a reasonable person's requirements for NPOV, notability etc. (Say in Draft space); now, don't tell me, the Wikigods all need to agree before it'd be reinstated? Biohistorian15 ( talk) 14:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

just ask an admin to move a draft into article space. if you believe all the admins are biased wikigods i suppose thats your problem then Bluethricecreamman ( talk) 19:24, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply

ive done the process before, in general if you reasonably solve the critiques in the article, admins are happily amenable Bluethricecreamman ( talk) 19:24, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Ok, thanks. I guess I could have been less sassy. Biohistorian15 ( talk) 09:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete and do not merge without positive consensus at Talk:Race and intelligence. Similar content has been discussed numerous times on that article's talk page and I don't believe that there has ever been consensus for inclusion. Also note that the Race and intelligence article is under a special sourcing restriction imposed by ArbCom, so including non-academic sources, even in the interest of WP:FRIND, would be disallowed. If I'm not mistaken, all the fringe-independent sources in the article currently up for deletion here are non-academic. And in the absence of acceptable fringe-independent sources, the WP:FRINGE guideline is clear that we must remain silent. Generalrelative ( talk) 05:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  Striking my !vote for now, per Nishidani's point below. I may come back and revise again. Generalrelative ( talk) 15:46, 30 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  ah.. didn't see that. agree entirely, seems its been debated to exhaustion on that page.

  possibly appropriate talk sections:

  • Talk:Race_and_intelligence/Archive_103#No_evidence_for_Jewish_IQ_advantage
  • Talk:Race_and_intelligence/Archive_102#Ashkenazi_Jews

  Bluethricecreamman ( talk) 14:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete A poor article with mostly very weak and shite sourcing (Charles Murray, Richard Lynn) and newspapers. Newspapers can be good sources for biographies but not for an article like this. It's not worth merging. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 22:43, 19 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion. If you look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence (2nd nomination), you'll see that this article has been nominated no less than 8 times under different page titles for deletion consideration and was always Kept until this last AFD. With such a track record of being Kept, I want there to be a very clear consensus on what should happen this time so that we are not back here for a 9th or 10th AFD discussion. It would help if participants reviewed past AFD discussions. I also question whether a Merge to Race and Intelligence is appropriate if this idea has been rejected on that article Talk page and, my own question, whether it is appropriate to consider one branch of Judaism to be a "race".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:52, 20 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Comment its hard to tell what the merits of the previous arguments were, as the deleted page from the past few nominations is unseen. Is there anyway to show more page history or something?

It also seems much of the commentary as the years pass on has been on the debunking of many of these studies from pop-culture tidbits of "wow science can explain race difference in a post-racial society" to "wow, can't believe we tried to believe we were post racial when we were publishing WP:FRINGE articles about how genetics prove the stereotypes about different racial groups" Bluethricecreamman ( talk) 21:58, 20 July 2024 (UTC) reply

tally results from previous AfDs.

1) [8] no consensus, basically equal deletes and keeps

2) [9] keep, the article is poorly written but has significant notability

3) [10] speedy close, the nominator gave no reason, so closer is probably right

4) [11] speedy close, nominator gave reason, closer just angry that nominator tries again?

5) Cannot find this? the numbering system gets weird, and an admin attempted to delete and salt this page to supposedly prevent further nominations? [ [12]

6) [13] Speedy keep, closed after 2 days? also weird, this is somehow both 6th nom of Ashkenazi intelligence and 1st nom of Ashkenazi Jewish Intelligence. notably, user who closed is blocked for 3 months from WP:ARBIPA topics due to editwarring, so I think the speedy keep might have been biased.

7) [ [14]] Delete, tons of sock puppet activity to Keep.

all this means to say is this article obviously brings up significant tensions, and the AfDs for this page haven't always followed what seems like a clear protocol. Bluethricecreamman ( talk) 22:11, 20 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Yeah, perhaps it would've been more definitive to use a clean slate for this instead of what I did for this nomination, but our time on Earth is limited, and rehashing this discussion didn't seem worthwhile. If anyone is coming here who doesn't know the history of this general topic on Wikipedia, maybe start with Talk:Race and intelligence/FAQ. The gist is that Wikipedia holds these articles to a high standard for a variety of reasons, based many years of history and tedious discussion. Sources need to be high-quality, and context needs to be provided, and right now this article fails to do that. Grayfell ( talk) 00:50, 21 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Thanks for digging. Here's what I see in the six previous discussions:

• Two discussions were from 2007. Many comments focused on notability. I don't know how strong Wikipedia's RS and NPOV rules were back then. Their combined interpretation at WP:FRINGE was just reaching guideline-level consensus at the time.
• The next three don't really count: they were speedy'd because the nominators didn't do their job of connecting their rationales to Wikipedia policies.
• The last, in 2020, was closed as TNT only. It did not come to a conclusion about whether another article at the title could be acceptable.

There are many good comments in the previous discussions, but their closing results have limited bearing on the delete reasons we are discussing today. Jruderman ( talk) 01:15, 21 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Q: Would it help to invite more editors to this discussion? I believe it would be considered nonpartisan to post at the Fringe Theories noticeboard, on Talk:Race and intelligence because we're continuing discussions from there, or on talk pages of not-yet-explicitly-ruled-out smerge targets: Gregory Cochran, Ashkenazi Jews, History of the race and intelligence controversy. Or on the talk pages of participants in the previous AfDs (perhaps just those who are extended-confirmed and still active). Jruderman ( talk) 01:39, 21 July 2024 (UTC) reply

You can if you want.

I would strongly oppose merging to Cochran's article for multiple reasons, so if anyone wants to actually propose that we can discuss in more detail. Any other article would still have to summarize reliable, independent sources. Right now the article is mostly journalistic opinions, and some of these are fringe sources, as well. This seems undue for a topic as broad as Ashkenazi Jews. With better sources it would be easier to evaluate where to merge. With any merge, the goal isn't "how do we preserve this content" it's "how do we proportionately and neutrally summarize this topic?" Grayfell ( talk) 02:42, 21 July 2024 (UTC) reply

The existing section at Gregory Cochran could use some contextualization or rebuttal, but looking at Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence again, I don't see anything worth moving to the Cochran article. Jruderman ( talk) 03:41, 21 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Same with the slightly-better section at Henry Harpending regarding the same paper. Jruderman ( talk) 03:46, 21 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Well, this thoughtful discussion is what I was hoping for rather than a quick close. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:52, 21 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete per the arguments to that effect above and my !vote from the 2020 discussion, since nothing has happened in the interim to make the situation any better. XOR'easter ( talk) 17:09, 22 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For the same reasons given in Liz's comments at the first relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 ( talk) 02:23, 28 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Ok, I've sent info about the discussion to WP:FT/N

Of note, there has been no noticeable improvement to the article in the past two weeks, and much of it remains citations of fringe sources, and debunks/reactions of the fringe sourcing, which probably is still too much WP:PROFRINGE to be worth keeping. Bluethricecreamman ( talk) 03:14, 28 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Fringe content cobbled together from inappropriate sources. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 03:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep if only because the topic has an extensive literature, barely scratched by the article itself. I see a lot of nervousness in these repeated attempts to erase a stub because it touches on a topic that is variously perceived as racist, as a put-down of an outgroup and a proud vaunting of the compared ingroup (Gregory Cochran, Jason Hardy, and Henry Harpending's paper became, in Steven Pinker's words, 'a target of harsh denunciation and morbid fascination.'), as too politically incorrect even to mention. The fact remains that:

The discussion is out there, and it has been held in the press, in synagogues, and before a sold-out audience at the Center for Jewish History in New York City’(Pinker 2005) Nadia Abu El-Haj, The Genealogical Science:The Search for Jewish Origins and the Politics of Epistemology, University of Chicago Press 2012 ISBN  978-0-226-20140-5 p.178

This is a 19th century myth, recycled because developments in genetics, and a number of provisory results, led to attempts to repackage it on empirical grounds, transforming a negative stereotype into a positive typecasting. So in terms of intellectual history it merits coverage; it terms of widespread diffusion it deserves a comprehensive, astringently neutral analysis per sources like Sander Gilman, our preeminent expert in this kind of argument ( Sander L. Gilman, Smart Jews: The Construction of the Image of Jewish Superior Intelligence, University of Nebraska Press 1997 ISBN  978-0-803-27069-5)

So symptomatic fits of nervous nellydom are quite out of place, certainly in a deletion argument. A topic that has a large range of secondary sources, that has stirred scientific and public controversy; that is widely misinterpreted; marked by conceptual clumsiness by its promotors and anxieties by its critics, obviously requires an encyclopedic entry. What we have is pathetic (too much edit-warring, not very informed or competent, but there is a real opportunity here to make a very good article based on high quality sources. In such cases, deletion is sheer laziness, an invitation to relax in shiftless torpor rather than creatively rise to a challenge when the alternative is simply hard, focused work reconstructing it in terms of contemporary scholarly commentary. Nishidani ( talk) 05:39, 28 July 2024 (UTC) reply

I think a good article about this topic maybe could be written, but the problem is that the current version is so fundamentally bad that it would require essentially rewriting from scratch, and the article would be subject to endless POV pushing that would ultimately degrade it to an unacceptable quality. I am also not finding any good sources on this topic other than the Gilman book. I think a section should probably be added to Stereotypes of Jews, which if warranted could be expanded into a full article. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 08:36, 28 July 2024 (UTC) reply

This is the version that existed before it was hacked to pieces. What we are looking at is the article after it was bombed by excisions. Gilman's is not the only book. The whole 2005 controversy eventually generated a thesis about modernity in Norman Lebrecht, Genius & Anxiety: How Jews Changed the World, 1847-1947, Scribner 2019 ISBN  978-1-982-13422-8. The problem is that few wikipedians statistically appear to edit articles in extenso, but nearly every wikipedian is interested in talk page comments. Nishidani ( talk) 09:22, 28 July 2024 (UTC) reply

The real problem is that Wikipedia editors have decided many of the available sources about Ashkenazi intelligence fail the requirements of WP:RS policy. That's why they keep being removed. Some examples from the time of the previous AFD are the edit summaries here and here. This way of understanding RS policy is one of the aspects of the topic that's been receiving media attention, most recently on Richard Dawkins' Twitter. And it's what will have to be addressed before there can be a well-sourced article about this topic. 2A02:FE1:7191:F500:1D68:AEEA:EBA5:D751 ( talk) 11:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC) reply

that second source is apparently neoconservative biased as per the wikipedia entry. richard dawkins twitter is also not relevant for establishing reliability Bluethricecreamman ( talk) 16:14, 28 July 2024 (UTC) reply

the article had previously been deleted before, and ive been curious about the sourcing of much of the previous version of the article Bluethricecreamman ( talk) 16:11, 28 July 2024 (UTC) reply

There are two options. A stub or poorly worked article can be removed/erased/expunged. When you do that, the topic itself as an encyclopedic entry disappears. No passing eyes will be tyempted to improve what isn't there. Or, one can look at the RS, ascertain if the topic is noteworthy (it is) and improve it. I've done this several times at AfD, and, in several hours, once the article is placed on a strong footing, the AfD is dropped. So the real issue is, is the topic noteworthy? (See below. It is). If so, then why make the article disappear rather than roll up one's sleeves and imprtove it. Just consistently removing stuff, and not replacing it with better sourcing, is bad practice. Nishidani ( talk) 16:40, 28 July 2024 (UTC) reply

The following don't fail RS and deal with the issue, and reminding editors that an abundant literature on the topic exists will not change this negative vote, and therefore I, for one, anm not going to waste time over several hours to show how the article can be rapidly rewritten into a near GA articled (because it will be erased). I don't know how many were used in the past and erased, but anyone, anyone can see at a glance that the topic is very well documented in RS.

• Charles Murray, Jewish genius Commentary April 2007
• Norman Lebrecht Genius & Anxiety: How Jews Changed the World, 1847-1947, Scribner 2019 9781982134228
• Bret Stephens The Secrets of Jewish Genius:It’s about thinking different,' New York Times 27 December 2019
• Nadia Abu El-Haj, The Genealogical Science:The Search for Jewish Origins and the Politics of Epistemology, University of Chicago Press 2012 ISBN  978-0-226-20140-5
• Steven Pinker Groups and Genes,' The New Republic 26 June 2006
• Jennifer Senior, 'Are Jews Smarter? New York 14 October 2005
• Raphael Patai, Jennifer Patai The Myth of the Jewish Race, Wayne State University Press 1989 ISBN  978-0-814-31948-2 pp.173-175
• Natural genius?The high intelligence of Ashkenazi Jews may be a result of their persecuted past The Economist 2 June 2005
• Sander L. Gilman, 'Are Jews Smarter Than Everyone Else? In: Medicine, Mental Health, Science, Religion, and Well-being (A.R. Singh and S.A. Singh eds.), MSM, 6, Jan-Dec 2008, p41-47.
• Sander L. Gilman, 'Smart Jews: The Construction of the Image of Jewish Superior Intelligence,' University of Nebraska Press 1997 9780803270695
• Outcry after NYT writer appears to argue Ashkenazi Jews are genetically smarter Times of Israel 29 December 2019,
• Noah J. Efron, A Chosen Calling: Jews in Science in the Twentieth Century Johns Hopkins University Press ISBN  978-1-421-41381-5
• Gregory Cochran, Jason Hardy, Henry Harpending. "Natural History of Ashkenazi Intelligence" , Journal of Biosocial Science 38 (5), pp. 659–693 (2006)
• Richard E. Nisbett, Intelligence and How to Get It: Why Schools and Cultures Count, W. W. Norton & Company 2010 ISBN  978-0-393-07141-2 pp. 171
• R. Brian Ferguson, How Jews Become Smart: Anti-"Natural History of Ashkenazi Intelligence", Rutgers University 2008
• Nicholas Wade, "Researchers Say Intelligence and Diseases May Be Linked in Ashkenazic Genes", The New York Times, 3 June 2005
• Gavin Evans, "The unwelcome revival of 'race science'". The Guardian 2 March 2018
• Steven M. Bray, Jennifer G. Mulle, Anne F. Dodd, Ann E. Pulver, Stephen Wooding, and Stephen T. Warren. ["Signatures of founder effects, admixture, and selection in the Ashkenazi Jewish population"], Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 14 September 2010;
• Christopher Wills, "Review: The 10,000 Year Explosion by Gregory Cochran and Henry Harpending", New Scientist February 11, 2009. 46–47.
• Maristella Botticini & Zvi Eckstein, "From Farmers to Merchants: A Human Capital Interpretation of Jewish Economic History", Discussion Paper No. 3718. Centre for Economic Policy Research (2003).

Apparently in deletion discussions, evidence (that this quick summary of easily googled sources) doesn't matter. Nishidani ( talk) 13:20, 28 July 2024 (UTC) reply

yeah, going off what you suggested, the last AfD was advocating for WP:TNT. The deletionists did not advocate that the topic wasn’t notable.

I still have some questions about some of the sourcing or presenting this uncritically, but its def notable.

I will say, much of the secondary sourcing here is a part of that discredited 2005 study. I would much rather have an article discussing this topic as to a stereotype for a model minority than trying to do pseudoscience to promote racial science. Bluethricecreamman ( talk) 18:36, 28 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Would like more sourcing about the ethics of this science, the stereotypes effects, etc.

As we have a week’s time, I might try my hand at adding more to this article again. ty nishidani! Bluethricecreamman ( talk) 18:51, 28 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Much appreciated. It's true that google throws up a lot around the 2005 article, but, if the idea illustrated in one version by an article that fails to convince its peer community gets traction, we should cover it. If only in order to allow readers quick access to what the best scholarship says about it. I think on of wikipedia's function is to elbow out meme replication, i.e.,by eluciding per secondary sources what some controversial idea states, and its reception history. This, per several scholars, goes deeper than that 2005 study however, and Gilman is a superb source on its historical context - things like the envy, resentment and rancour felt by many at what was, in large effect, the implementation of a Protestant work ethic in a rising non-Christian minority of the population. Nishidani ( talk) 19:57, 28 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Mind you, I remain completely open-minded about this issue. I wouldn't exclude a priori that there are populations which, statistically, appear to display a significant, on average, higher IQ (and that is a relative definition of intelligence: I recall reading in 1965 a study that suggested poets did poorly in them) than other contiguous groups. Some communities have a markedly higher longevity than their neighbours. In both cases, it does not mean that, Ashkenazi are all more intelligent by genetic endowment, or that Sardinians are all stocked with better longevity genes. In any such population dumb schmucks or those who die prematurely before the national average will abound. I don't believe one should feel intimidated or uneasy about any kind of high order research that appears to upset the applecart of our common democratic beliefs in equality, which is a legal ideal, not a biological reality. Nishidani ( talk) 20:14, 28 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Hi Nishindani, I'm just checking back in on this discussion, and I see that you've provided some excellent sources. I would object to calling e.g. Charles Murray or Nicholas Wade reliable secondary sources on this topic, and from a quick glance some of the sources you list don't appear to discuss the topic directly, e.g. Norman Lebrecht's Genius & Anxiety, despite what one might surmise from the title. But other sources like Nadia Abu El Haj and Sander Gilman look good. Whether this should redound to a "Keep" or a redirect to Stereotypes of Jews as Hemiauchenia suggests, I'm not yet sure. I'll look into the sources some more before deciding whether and how to revise my !vote, but in any case I thank you. Generalrelative ( talk) 21:15, 28 July 2024 (UTC) reply

I concur that that Charles Murray and Nicholas Wade are not RS on the topic of intelligence. I don't think the "Natural History of Ashkenazi Intelligence" is particularly reliable either, given the controversial associations of its authors. For a contentious topic like this we would really want to look to academic sources rather than to newspapers which tend to be less reliable. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 00:19, 29 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Agreed. Not only is "Natural History of Ashkenazi Intelligence" primary, it's unambiguously WP:FRINGE per the established consensus on race and intelligence. We can still mention it in article space of course, but only to the degree that it's discussed in reliable WP:FRIND / WP:SECONDARY sources. Generalrelative ( talk) 01:08, 29 July 2024 (UTC) reply

I edit a number of pages I think explain nutter hypotheses, e.g. Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship, a few of us reedited that after doing the FA Shakespeare Authorship Question which outlines the near total academic orthodoxy, which was less familiar to readers than the bizarre literature that pullulated concerning alternative candidates.

My principle is, since these ideas, be they nutter, lunatic fringe, minor, or theories of some passing scientific curiosity since fallen into desuetude, for our readers it is important to provide comprehensive coverage, if only to ensure that global readers whgo google are not sucked into the crap universe. This is one of wiki's fundamental functions, and it should do it neutrally, without any intimidation, anxiety, reserve, or personal intrusions of one's private, or even well-founded (a disciplinary consensus) judgments on where the 'approximate truth' might lie. I don't think much of Nicholas Wade, for example, but his negative review of the Khazar hypothesis got major support from most editors, and I didn't object - he was part of the discourse at that time, even though his grasp of molecular biology, despite his degree, was mediocre. He, like Murray, has a wikibio, and has a certain prominence in public discussions of these matters, so applying highbar RS, something rarely done, that excludes anyone but the foremost experts in a particular subject, is dangerous, because we miss coverage that has influence on public perceptions. This is not a 'science' article where only cutting edge experts get a say. It is an article that covers the claims to the possible existence of ethnic differentials in intelligence made by people who have qualifications in the area, though their views are not mainstream, but also of the way this controversy was taken up by the broad mainstream outlets (ergo impacting public memory and opinions). That is why such figures are acceptable, just as in scholarly terms, incompetents like William Farina and Mark Anderson were used as sources on the Oxford Shakespeare page, also because they have or had a public profile. This is not just about what science says of the scientific status of a dubious theory, but about how it arose, who promote(s)d it, what its (a) scientific reception and (b) public impact was/has been. The truth/science plays very little part of public discourse which battens on memes and dumbdowned ideas. So it is of fundamental importance that we address not only the science of the world, but the vast extent of the confusions in the public sphere which occlude our clear perception of what the cusp of learning might say. Nishidani ( talk) 13:30, 30 July 2024 (UTC) reply

I have no objection to this at all, so long as we observe the WP:FRINGE guideline. In the case of Wade for instance, it will be important to remember that e.g.:

Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles. Independent sources are also necessary to determine the relationship of a fringe theory to mainstream scholarly discourse. Fringe sources can be used to support text that describes fringe theories provided that such sources have been noticed and given proper context with third-party, independent sources.

Generalrelative ( talk) 15:16, 30 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Let's clear up some confusion here.

• (a) the article deals with some results, reliably published in the relevant scientific journals, that suggested on average Ashkenazi had a higher IQ than comparable groups in their societies.
• (b) Some spun this as proof of a racial difference
• (c) Some said the observed differences could be explained by specific cultural factors, etc.

Are editors here contending that the scientific data in (a) are incorrect, or the result of skewed methods or that the data constitute fringe facts, whatever they are, that (b) can be shown to exist ergo the topic (a,b,c) should be ignored as fringe or (c) we can ignore (b) because there is an alternative explanation, culture, that accounts for the apparently ascertained statistical results of a number of surveys in (a). My impression is that almost all comments here are focused on (b) and ignoring the status (in the academic literature) of (a) and (c). If so, the article will be deleted, and we shall never have a wiki article on (a) and (b) and (c), simply because of a failure to distinguish the elements in a complex narrative. Nishidani ( talk) 15:33, 30 July 2024 (UTC) reply

I see your point. And honestly, thanks for your patience in laying it out. I have to get back to work but will strike my !vote for now. I need to look into the literature quite a bit more before I can fully engage with you on the substance of the matter. Generalrelative ( talk) 15:46, 30 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Thanks. That it a very empirical approach to these problematical articles, and deeply appreciated (whatever your eventual vote may be). Nishidani ( talk) 16:08, 30 July 2024 (UTC) reply

I disagree, especially on something as politically charged and with such a historical pseudoscientific record as race and intelligence.

A fairly ridiculous amount of “scientific literature” from the 1800s and early 1900s has promoted eugenics, and equally presenting discredited theories and current scientific consensus goes against the principles of WP:DUE. If public discourse goes off a cliff, and sourcing starts to do Alternate facts, we should be able to debate and reason on here which sourcing is WP:rsp and which are based on bunk. We should not freely present bunk without appropriate criticism. Bluethricecreamman ( talk) 15:18, 30 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Your concern is entirely reasonable, but this is precisely why we have the WP:FRINGE guideline. So long as we stick to it, we will avoid the pitfalls you describe. Generalrelative ( talk) 15:46, 30 July 2024 (UTC) reply

I think we should remain skeptical of science being used to advocate for stereotypes, for good reason as well. like generalRelative states, there are charlatans in this field who have polluted a lot with poorly done science to advocate for stereotypes, and extraordinary claims should require extraordinary proof before we present too much of it without appropriate criticism. Bluethricecreamman ( talk) 22:14, 28 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Bluethricecreamman, please absolutely stop these kinds of general appeals from now on; WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS is very clear about this.

We must work with reliable scholarly literature of all kinds.

In fact, you may want to strike(through) these two comments above! Biohistorian15 ( talk) 17:17, 30 July 2024 (UTC) reply

no. see Sagan standard but primary research requires vetting by the scientific consensus. and even if some pop sci folks publish that ivermectin is the next cure for covid or that vitamin c does cure cancer, we should beware.

didnt see generalrelatibe but they’re right about following wp:fringe Bluethricecreamman ( talk) 17:40, 30 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete per WP:V and WP:PROFRINGE. The occurrence of several earlier deletion discussions should encourage advocates of "keep" to work hard to get the article in good shape -- unless the article is hopeless. The fact that this hasn't been done means that it's time to delete it. NightHeron ( talk) 09:01, 28 July 2024 (UTC) reply

The article has not been allowed to get 'into good shape' because of relentless excisions. Anyone could put the article 'in good shape' were the deletionist impetus less relentless so that it could be improved. Nishidani ( talk) 09:22, 28 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Any experienced wikipedian can predict just from the title that the article is probably in a parlous state. But the topic is notable, so it deserves an article and we should persevere. Zero ^talk 08:31, 30 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep but requires an outrageous amount of work. It’s a notable and rather interesting historical topic which should have it’s own article, but for that to be viable, someone would have to properly work through the academic sources. FortunateSons ( talk) 08:49, 30 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Merge into Race and intelligence. There's no need to keep it out unless / until that article gets too long, and if / when that happens, we can split it again. The people already working on Race and intelligence are also the people most likely to be able to improve this one. FourPi ( talk) 19:43, 30 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• There is probably an interesting article that could be written about the topic of "Jewish intelligence" as a stereotype and its history going back to the 19th century, based on the works of Sander Gilman, but the current article is so, so bad that I really can't be compelled to vote keep. I would be okay with Draftifying the article to completely rework it to be based on the work of Gilman. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 21:23, 30 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete/Selectively merge with Stereotypes of Jews. My nomination and this !vote are not based on notability in broad terms, this involves specific issues with this topic and its current and potential sources. This nomination was based on WP:TNT and WP:FRINGE issues, and the above discussion has not resolved those issues in my opinion. Any merge with Race and intelligence should first have consensus at that article's talk page, and it's going to require a lot of work before that happens. We would have to figure out what, exactly, we're merging, in other words. A draft would potentially help with that.

There are many potential sources for this topic. I've looked at plenty of those sources, including some of the new ones proposed above. Some of them are reliable in some contexts, and some are not reliable at all. The Cochran etc. source is about race, genetics, and IQ. Cultural factors are discussed in simplistic terms as background for theories on Jewish genetic drift. Cochran etc. categorized this form of intelligence as a genetic trait specific to a subgroup of a Jews, who are treated by the authors as biologically separate from other populations -that's the point. There is a LOT to unpack here, but again, all of this has already been unpacked on Wikipedia talk pages more times than anyone can count. To quote Sander Gilman: "Take Home Message: Don't confuse racial categories with scientific ones. Don't assume that making 'positive' comments about a group is necessarily a good thing."( PMID  22013349) If the article is going to be about Cochran etc. than it should be rewritten from scratch to be about this paper, including context (such as Henry Harpending#Racial views). If this topic isn't just about Cochran etc., than it's about "Jewish smartness". That reduces this to either trivia or to a stereotype, and both of those are a better explained and contextualized elsewhere. Grayfell ( talk) 03:09, 31 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• WP:TNT again and or Merge with Stereotypes of Jews. Maybe draftify it and let a motivated editor take their best shot. Think it probably is WP:N, especially with the amount of pop science buzz race and intelligence gets, but Grayfell is also right that current version is from Cochran and other indelibly flawed sources. This is a hornets nest of a topic and I'm happy to editwar on other things in the meantime haha, but there is a significant amount of work to get this into shape Bluethricecreamman ( talk) 04:31, 31 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  Gave it another shot, but this is not my expertise area. I'm gonna notify folks from Race and intelligence to take a look if they want too. Bluethricecreamman ( talk) 05:18, 31 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  Thanks for your effort! By now it seems clear that we should keep and continue to improve; TNT does not apply here. ꧁ Zanahary꧂ 07:04, 31 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Katoch–Sikh war (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

A few unreliable sources- Ref 1) by Khazan Singh was published in 1914, and the author is not a historian. Ref 8) by Mark Brentnall is a self published source with no information available about the author. Ref 7) by Amarinder Singh, the author is a politician not a historian. In addition, refs 2) and 3) are improperly cited, do not have a page number or a proper url to a page discussing the subject at hand and thus fail WP:V. The remaining sources make only passing mention of this battle/conflicts between Sansar Chand Katoch and Ranjit Singh, and subsequently focus far more on Chand and Ranjit Singh's alliance against the Nepalis; the actual "war" content between the 2 in these books fails WP:SIGCOV by a long shot. The article's information is best suited as a prelude/context in the page Nepal-Sikh war due to the aforementioned proportionality of coverage surrounding the two's alliance. In addition, the creator of the article created numerous low quality pages to inundate Wikipedia with articles aggrandizing his religion's military history. Southasianhistorian8 ( talk) 19:13, 30 July 2024 (UTC) reply