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. Sandstein 14:41, 16 October 2020 (UTC) reply

Dysgenics

Dysgenics (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)

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

I am nominating this page for deletion on behalf of WhatIsAPoggers per discussion on the user talk page, as the user failed to nominate this page for an AfD discussion. I myself am neutral on deletion (though I did deprod this page earlier). Java Hurricane 06:39, 9 October 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Java Hurricane 06:39, 9 October 2020 (UTC) reply

• Pasting Poggers' reasoning from the PROD: Article gives undue weight to pseudoscientific eugenicists such as Richard Lynn. It's not clear why this deserves its own article, as dysgenics has no evidence of being a widely accepted term outside of eugenicist circles. In addition, the weak amount of content here could be fit under a dysgenics tab in the article discussing eugenics. Lastly, this page is also scarcely edited and visited as evidenced by its edit history, which takes mere moments to go back to 2018 and beyond. The criteria for deletion I am citing are: G3 of speedy deletion, A7 citing the unnecessary state of dysgenics being its own article as opposed to a subpage in the eugenics article, as well as #5, #6, and #8 on the deletion policy owing to the reliance on largely one pseudoscientific source for information, the lack of established notability independent of eugenicist sources, and lack of reason to be independent from the eugenics article. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 07:00, 9 October 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep 4,500 views a month, the subject appears covered in numerous scientific journals. Sure the article could use some fixing for POV, but deletion is not cleanup. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 07:04, 9 October 2020 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Keep The prod was improper as the topic has been previously kept at AfD. The topic is clearly notable – for example, here's an entire book on the subject. There seems to be a history of disruption here and so we should shut this down quickly. Andrew🐉( talk) 09:31, 9 October 2020 (UTC) reply
• Strong keep a glancing search yielded enough information for a stand-alone article as well as establishing notability. Nom's PROD rationale is clearly invalid, and the nom should, in my opinion, read WP:NOTCLEANUP. Java Hurricane 10:06, 9 October 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete I would like to reopen the discussion for deletion. I previously have suggested this be deleted via a proposal for deletion, however as this was rejected I would like to appeal with a discussion here. I would like to outline my reasons as follows, as well as give a brief response to the concerns listed as to why the criteria I suggested may apply.

G3 - While there was disagreement owing to G3 as this article is said to not be a hoax, I would like to disagree on that subject. Specifically, dysgenics is not a widely accepted area in science; its only modern discussion, viewing Google Scholar, as an independent concept is through Richard Lynn and those affiliated with him, with prior discussion being over 80 years old. Its other usages on the web are merely as a word to describe genetic deterioration and not as an independent concept; as Wikipedia is not a dictionary, there is no need to implement an article on an idea that is solely promoted by those widely regarded among scientific authorities as pseudoscientific, and the creation of an article lends the idea a false sense of credibility as a concept.

A7 - The responder suggested I did not read the criteria, and while I have, I do understand the reason for concern. I cited it as the article lacks clear importance, however I can understand the reason for concern as it is not clear that A7 can apply to philosophical or scientific ideas, especially those in pseudoscience. I do accept that A7 may not apply to the article, however I would nonetheless like to bring up a discussion of whether the article warrants being its own piece independnet of a subcategory of the eugenics article, or something perhaps similar. I do not believe it meets the criteria, as it is not a widely recognized term in the sciences. There is no indication of any scholarly discussion of it as a term or concept, even scientifically, beyond that of Richard Lynn and his company, and a handful of studies responding to the concept of genetic deterioration at large in the field of IQ research. Given the low scope, there is little need for this to be an article; one can include the brief discussion of the concept of dysgenics in the eugenics article, and a brief discussion of the rebuttal in other discussions of IQ & fertility on Wikipedia. Including them together in one article is thus unnecessary.

I would also like to cite #5, #6, and #8 on the deletion policy. This is due to the fact that the article almost exclusively lies on Richard Lynn for information on dysgenics as an applied concept, and as detailed prior attempts to pull up additional information largely only reveal those affiliated with him discussing the concept. In the broader scientific and specifically genetic community, this is not discussed nor is there evidence that it is treated seriously as an idea. This would additionally make sense, owing to the fact that genetic changes are exclusively brought about by changes in fitness, or what is most successful at reproduction, and as such there is no such thing as 'bad genes' or those that can be said to be undesirable, merely those that are most adaptive to a given environment.

To cite the concerns listed specifically, the citations on Google Scholar immediately pull up Richard Lynn's book, which is the only one on the topic. Richard Lynn is a noted eugenicist and pseudoscientist who is repeatedly bashed for his poor methodology and appeals to scientific racism to justify his white nationalist political views. This book is no exception, as the concept is only discussed prior by other eugenicists. The further evidence for this is apparent on Scholar, as the next citation is William Shockley, yet another noted eugenicist, in an article in which he uses it as a shorthand for retogenesis of evolution. After that, there is the Nunes article which is cited; this article can be said to be the only citation independent from usage among eugenicists, with the next couple independent citations being of reviews of Lynn's book. Following that is a biology discussion from 1985 with 4 citations that uses it merely as a metaphor and does not discuss the concept. Following that is an article by Bardis 1974 with no citations that provides a definition of dysgenics. After that is a PDF to a far right book released in 2019 with no citations by Michael Stark The pages following have no citations and are largely just reviews of Lynn's book, obscure eugenics papers from the early 20th century mentioning it offhandedly, obscure nonacademic articles and other works by Stark, almost none of which have citations. The most cited thing mentioning eugenics, save for Lynn's book, is this book chapter ( https://www.google.com/books/edition/Shaping_the_American_Educational_State_1/2jMQAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=dysgenics) which only utilizes it as a name in relation to discussions of racism, rather than discussing the concept in of itself.

I think it can be said, then, that there is no substantiative discussion of it in the modern era that is independent of Richard Lynn, with the vast majority of pages mentioning it being in relation to Lynn's works or that of other far right ideologues; this was all derived from only the first few pages of Google Scholar, and indicates how utilizing just a glance into the subject is inadequate as Lynn's work inflates the citation count for areas actually discussing the subject in of itself rather than using it as a shorthand or definitional term. There is little need to have an independent article on the subject, then, especially since the content here can be easily usurped under the Richard Lynn article or that of others as previously mentioned. WhatIsAPoggers ( talk) 13:38, 9 October 2020 (UTC) reply

• Speedy Keep I think the argument of WhatIsAPoggers is that this is an older concept adopted by far-right ideologues. I'm checking Wikipedia policies, and I don't find that anywhere as a rationale for deletion of ideas that are widely discussed, culturally speaking. - AppleBsTime ( talk) 14:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep: There are good references available and even present in the current version too. Obivously there is a scope to make it a good start, but definitly not worth deleting. thanks QueerEcofeminist ^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 16:28, 9 October 2020 (UTC) reply
• Merge to Richard_Lynn#Dysgenics_and_eugenics. Except for two sentences on the history of the term in the lede, and the "in fiction" section (which is OR), there is nothing here that isn't already covered in that subsection. Really, it's all "Lynn wrote X and other people reacted by writing Y" - that is exactly what Richard_Lynn#Dysgenics_and_eugenics already covers. - This is more of a housekeeping concern though. Certainly there are no notability issues. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 17:11, 10 October 2020 (UTC) reply

• The concept long predates Lynn. Eminent people like Huxley and Inge were writing about this before Lynn was born. Andrew🐉( talk) 17:34, 10 October 2020 (UTC) reply

  • The concept of dysgenics was largely obscure and solely definitional before Lynn. As he is the sole one promoting this currently, and as this concept lacks much significance beyond him, I would like to support the merge proposal as well, given what I originally detailed. WhatIsAPoggers ( talk) 00:35, 16 October 2020 (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.