- 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 keep. Closing early, since the nominator was blocked for disruption and socking, and nobody else expresses a preference for deletion. Can be renominated by any serious editor. Sandstein 16:14, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Dysgenics
- Dysgenics ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Vote: Delete. This is not an actual scientific term, but a thinly veiled attempt to insert Racist content into Wikipedia. Absolute nonsense. ---Love, The Lord and Sovereign of Truth
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 January 6. — cyberbot I Talk to my owner:Online 08:03, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- Note: Nominator is currently blocked for disruptive editing. (Not having read the article, I offer no opinion on the deletion request.) Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 10:55, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
I vote to fix rather than delete this article. Richard Lynn, who is cited in the article, is indeed rather racist in his works; that is presumably what the complaint was about. The concept of dysgenics, whether it is a valid theory or not, is worthy of note/discussion. Matthewslaney ( talk) 01:01, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- keep, of course. Also, speedily close please, on grounds of this having been submitted by a sockpuppet account to begin with. -- dab (𒁳) 11:51, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 05:24, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 keep. Closing early, since the nominator was blocked for disruption and socking, and nobody else expresses a preference for deletion. Can be renominated by any serious editor. Sandstein 16:14, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Dysgenics
- Dysgenics ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Vote: Delete. This is not an actual scientific term, but a thinly veiled attempt to insert Racist content into Wikipedia. Absolute nonsense. ---Love, The Lord and Sovereign of Truth
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 January 6. — cyberbot I Talk to my owner:Online 08:03, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- Note: Nominator is currently blocked for disruptive editing. (Not having read the article, I offer no opinion on the deletion request.) Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 10:55, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
I vote to fix rather than delete this article. Richard Lynn, who is cited in the article, is indeed rather racist in his works; that is presumably what the complaint was about. The concept of dysgenics, whether it is a valid theory or not, is worthy of note/discussion. Matthewslaney ( talk) 01:01, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- keep, of course. Also, speedily close please, on grounds of this having been submitted by a sockpuppet account to begin with. -- dab (𒁳) 11:51, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 05:24, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
- 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.