Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intelligence and personality

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The result was Nomination Withdrawn.

Intelligence and personality[edit]

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

Article seems to fail WP:SYNTH and WP:NOTESSAY. Winner 42 Talk to me! 13:11, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination Withdrawn, my main concern was that this topic wouldn't have enough coverage to stand on it's own because Intelligence and Personality already exist, but other editors have shown that this is a suitability notable topic in current academic fields. Winner 42 Talk to me! 13:17, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I created this article by cutting and pasting content that someone recently added to g factor (psychometrics). While it is true that the article in its current form may fail various policies, there's a considerable research literature on the topic itself, so I think the article should be improved, not deleted.--Victor Chmara (talk) 13:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep I fully agree that the article in its current condition looks like it has had too little attention from the point of view of making it an encyclopedia article, but this is a recognized encyclopedic topic, there is a lot of literature about this topic available in reliable sources for medical articles, and I would be happy to help improve the article. Indeed, I have already been keeping a source list in user space since 2010 to guide fellow Wikipedians to reliable sources on this article's topic and related topics. So the problem here is just the usual problem most of the 6,824,224 articles on Wikipedia have, that it still needs more work and article content improvement on the basis of reliable sources. I'm happy to help--I have many other articles with more page views to fix on related topics--so the rationale here, that the article currently reads like an essay, is not a sufficient rationale for deleting an article on a topic that can be shown from reliable sources to be a legitimate, encyclopedic topic for which there is an active program of primary research and secondary-source writing. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 15:28, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination doesn't give any particular details and does not explain why these supposed problems can't be corrected by ordinary editing. Andrew D. (talk) 07:19, 28 April 2015 (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.