Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iran's intelligence quotient

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. postdlf (talk) 20:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Iran's intelligence quotient

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

There's no significant coverage of this topic in reliable sources, and the topic is therefore not notable. The article is a content fork of Nations and intelligence, and combines material from multiple primary sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.

I prodded the article earlier, and while there was no opposition to deleting it, the admin who dealt with it thought that AfD should be used to delete it. ~~The same admin now changed the article into a redirect page to Nations and intelligence, but there's no reason to have a redirect page like this, either.~~--Victor Chmara (talk) 07:18, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The current redirect will be confusing to readers and editors. I too am puzzled about why a redirect notice has appeared at Iran's intelligence quotient overnight. The main issue here, really, is that there do not appear to be reliable sources (and this has been discussed on the article talk page) for a stand-alone article on the IQ score level of Iran. If such sources were to be found for such an article, the situation would be different. As for the redirect target, Nations and intelligence, there could be a little back-and-forth among the editors about that title, but there are plainly quite a few sources on that issue, and that article has the potential to be very well sourced indeed. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 17:40, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the redirect and restored the content of the article so that people can more easily decide about deletion.--Victor Chmara (talk) 17:53, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I changed to a redirect for two reasons: one, the term is a slightly, if unlikely, search term (or some similar combination of words, which would still likely be found by search engine), so there's no harm in keeping it; two, it avoided the need for a deletion discussion, since there seemed to be agreement on the talk page that the article didn't need to exist. But having the discussion is fine. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:14, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

" it avoided the need for a deletion discussion, since there seemed to be agreement on the talk page that the article didn't need to exist "

I find that to be a worrying statement, especially from an administrator. There certainly is not "agreement on the talk page that the article didn't need to exist". Also, bypassing a deletion discussion by changing to a redirect is not an acceptable way to "delete" an article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:24, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:N and I don't think the redirect is useful at all. Ansh6 6 6 01:29, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- What Ansh666 says. The article is also not comprehensible, and there is no way to research additional information to clear it up. When an article this bad appears, creating a redirect from it is not useful. The sooner it is fully removed from Wikipedia and search engines the better. --(AfadsBad (talk) 17:07, 3 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Delete. The references describe subgroups of the Iranian population and do not establish notability of the topic. Indeed the purpose of the article seems be a refutation of Lynn & Vanhanen's conclusion. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:30, 5 September 2013 (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.