Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bias in Mental Testing

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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:34, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bias in Mental Testing[edit]

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

Fails wp:nbook, created by a blocked sock, merge into author article. aprock (talk) 01:38, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The book is certainly both notable and controversial. It meets WP:NBOOK as it "has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself", namely, hundreds of reviews. Though the original author has since been blocked, several other editors have contributed to the article. Any shortcomings in the current version of the article should be addressed by normal editing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:48, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have multiple citations dealing with the book as a subject? I can't find any significant reviews, and it's not at all clear to me that all books which are reviewed merit an article on wikipedia. Reviewing WP:NBOOK further, it's clearly the case that simple reviews are not sufficient, but that critical analysis of the source must also be provided. aprock (talk) 05:17, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the sources already in the article, the book was the subject of a very lengthy and detailed review by David Hawkins, published in the New York Times on July 6, 1980. Unfortunately, most of the review is behind a paywall. But I am a New York Times subscriber, and I can attest that the review is serious, detailed, and 17 paragraphs long. And those are dense, analytical paragraphs. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:54, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another deeply analytical source is a paper called An Argument Opposing Jensen on Test Bias: The Psychological Aspects, by Janice Dowd Scheuneman, in Arthur Jensen: Consensus And Controversy, published by Routledge. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:18, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And then there is the book Perspectives on Bias in Mental Testing, co-authored by Cecil R. Reynolds, which mentions Jensen 82 times. This is published by Plenum Press, an imprint of Springer Science+Business Media. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:30, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also worthy of consideration is the Handbook of Psychological Assessment, published by Elsevier, which says "One of the most controversial figures in mental bias research is Jensen, of the University of California at Berkeley; his most controversial book is Bias in Mental Testing (1980). According to Jensen, mental testing has been criticized because of one or more of the following reasons:" The book then lists nine factors, and spends several pages analyzing them. Need I go on? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:43, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All of the sources you list which address the book at any length are contemporary with the publication of the book. It may have generated some controversy when it came out, and it certainly deserves extensive discussion in the author article, but it's not sufficiently notable to deserve it's own article. aprock (talk) 15:01, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Handbook of Psychological Assessment was published 20 years later. In any event notability is not temporary. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aprock, you can't just go making up notability criteria. This book was reviewed in dozens of high quality journals when it came out and it continues to be discussed. I think Cullen328's listed enough, so I won't waste my time with more, but if you search on the title in JSTOR you'll find reviews in the British Journal of Educational Studies, Contemporary Sociology, the American Journal of Education (2 distinct reviews), and so on. It clearly satisfies WP:NBOOK.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:42, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (whisper) @ 10:01, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (gossip) @ 10:03, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. You may not enjoy reading the book, or approve of it, or think it reliable, but it has certainly attracted detailed critical attention. Another example here (JSTOR access is free for a few items). Thincat (talk) 10:57, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That contemporary book review is not for general audiences, and does not establish notability of the book. The book should obviously be covered, but the proper place is in the author's article. aprock (talk) 15:03, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. I see that the nominator here means to uphold Wikipedia policy. I am aware from following his edits since 2010 that the nominator has in mind to continue long-delayed article cleanup following a 2010 ArbCom case, which found that the articles related to the topic of this article have been subject to much edit-warring and use of sockpuppets and meatpuppets to push points of view. I think his suggestion that discussion of this book should be merged with the biographical article on the book's author (who is no longer living) is a sound suggestion consistent with Wikipedia policy. I watchlist that article (as I watchlist the article on the book, which is a book I own) and I can contribute to updating the article per Wikipedia policy if the nominator's suggestion is followed here. The editors who have kindly suggested keeping the separate article on the book also make valid points, so I don't oppose their point of view. Because I own and have read the book, and own quite a few Wikipedia reliable sources that refer to the book, my main interest here is to make sure that we establish due weight for claims about the book and its influence and due weight for the factual claims about the world made in the book, which is important for upholding Wikipedia policy. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 15:31, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but people here will dispute the claim that the book isn't notable. Editorially, it could be very sensible to merge and that can be achieved without making doubtful claims. Two topics can be merged even when both are separately notable. AfD is not the right venue for getting consensus for a merge though merge can be a legitimate outcome here. Is it too late for the nominator to consider closing this? Thincat (talk) 18:55, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not to put words on his keyboard, but I think the nominator's concern is WP:WEIGHT, and that genuinely is a concern here. We don't have a lot of separate articles about each and every book that is published in English, and I have seen some very skewed sampling of the books available on the topics that that book is about proposed as stand-alone articles on Wikipedia. This, I think, is one of those issues where very distinct Wikipedia policies all apply, and I respect your point of view and the nominator's about which policies to apply to the issue before us here. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 19:13, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, we have a very large number of articles on notable books, and this one seems indisputably notable to me and should not be considered "each and every book". I routinely recommend deleting articles on non-notable books. In this case, nominator asks for substantive, analytical reviews, which I easily find and provide. We learn that several books have been written about this book. Now, the reviews are too contemporaneous. Or one is not for a general audience. But one source was published 20 years later, and the first I provided was the New York Times. There is no doubt in my mind that this book meets WP:NBOOK so instead the argument seems to be that the book is too controversial, or that we have too many articles on controversial books on race and intelligence, or that merging to the author would result in one less entry on someone's watch list. If ArbCom thinks the article should be deleted, they should say so and tell us why. Otherwise, Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:33, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep First, it meets WP:NBOOK clause (1) per Cullen328. Second, it meets NBOOK clause (5): The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is him/herself notable by Wikipedia's standards; rather, the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of written work would be a common subject of academic study. Given that Jensen's work must be taken into account by any scholar writing on race and intelligence, and given that his work has been the subject of lengthy discussions by many eminent thinkers, and given that Jensen is one of the most influential psychologists of the 20th century, I think clause (5) is met as well. Only one of the criteria is sufficient, hence this book is notable.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:35, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. -- GreenC 04:42, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per WP:SK, "...only proposing a non-deletion action such as moving or merging...". Per WP:MAD, merger would mean that we don't delete. Andrew (talk) 18:44, 21 February 2014 (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.