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 delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Race science[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This is an obvious POV fork from Scientific racism. The two references invoked, Stephen Jay Gould and The Bell Curve, are already cited in Scientific racism. Tazmaniacs 17:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Note: I think the best issue is to merge it into "Scientific racism," as "Race Science" (and "Academic Racism") are all synonyms ([1], first paragraph, etc.) Tazmaniacs 12:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 18:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What I could understand of it was duplicative of the SR article. Cap'n Walker 18:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant to Scientific racism. Bigdaddy1981 20:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this article is supported by numerous reliable independent sources. There is a pre-existing merge proposal which should be separately dealt with. If the merge is not considered appropriate, only then should the article be judged on its own merits. As it stands, this subject is sufficiently cited to establish notability - npov problems are not sufficient for deletion. Skomorokh ^incite 14:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. A merge was proposed and seems to have been rejected. NPOV in itself is not sufficient for deletion, but POV fork is: "As Wikipedia does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be nominated for deletion...The most blatant POV forks are those which insert consensus-dodging content under a title that should clearly be made a redirect to an existing article". Scientific racism is that existing article, and it is impossible to contrast "Race science" with "Scientific racism." The sources used in the article are precisely two of the most famous sources used in "Scientific racism". Tazmaniacs 15:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but that rationale is untenable. I see only three possibilities:

Race science should be deleted as a POV fork. RS contains no material worthy of inclusion in Scientific racism.
Race science ought to be merged with Scientific racism. That is, RS contains some valuable information (not worthy of deletion) but the subjects largely overlap.
The subjects are distinct, and RS is worthy of an article on its own.

Do you accept that these are the options available?

My assessment is as follows. The sources in the RS article are reliable and independent, and contain noon-trivial coverage of the subject. This rules out the "delete as POV fork" option. Between the other two options, the correct place for discussion is a merge proposal on the talkpage. Skomorokh ^incite 15:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in Race science which Scientific racism does not already cover & includes. SR already dealt with Stephen Jay Gould and with J. Philippe Rushton. The only info in RS which is not in SR is the paragraph on Richard Lewontin, which besides lacking a proper reference & being more than disputable in its current form, belongs to the article race. Thus, yes, deletion is the appropriate course to follow. Tazmaniacs 11:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Some information seems good are not in the another page, delete the page we may lose the information. Why don't we merge the pages and make a redirect for one of the page over delete it?Srtsopid08167 16:46, 16 August 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.