Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Log/2020 February 12

This discussion is quite long, controversial and deals with a controversial article, so it won't be closed without a detailed closing statement/rationale.

Numerically, we are at 28 delete (27+nominator) and 30 keep (including one "strong keep"), with some deletes also advocating a redirect after deletion and some keeps considering a rename. That's not a consensus in favour of either keeping or deleting this topic, but on Wikipedia consensus is not simply a matter of counting up the !votes but also need to consider the arguments presented. There are some accounts and IPs that have been tagged as WP:SPA (and some SPAs which haven't been tagged as such and appear to violate the part of WP:SOCK that prohibits the use of undisclosed alternative accounts in project space), but it's not clear in many cases why they are tagged as SPAs, as well as some which are suspected of being sockpuppets. I note that there are one or two unactioned WP:SPIs on the sockpuppet accusations which greatly hampers assessing whether these !votes should be discarded as sock arguments or not. Apart of this there are competing accusations of canvassing. Nevertheless, it looks like there are a number of established editors on both sides. Because of these concerns, in this discussion we'll need to give particular weight to the arguments offered by the participants, rather than merely considering the nosecount. There are also way too many comments that are more remarks on other editors than on the article's suitability and some which are in a rather mocking tone (in particular on the keep side, or so it seems to me), a large amount of back and forth that sometimes edges into WP:BLUDGEON (and is sometimes offtopic - we aren't discussing Gender and intelligence here) and some arguments about edits done to the article while it was pending deletion.

The delete argument is essentially that even if the article topic is notable and of great interest as evidenced by e.g the page views, it is a) covered already in existing articles such as Scientific racism, Race and genetics and Heritability of IQ which according to the delete claim are the actually notable subjects and b) that the article has problems with WP:Undue weight so severe that a WP:TNT deletion is called for and c) "Because it is controversial it has WP:UNDUE visibility." Additional concerns flagged by the delete camp are that the title presupposes that there is a correlation (i.e that it pushes a POV), that any valid content in it appears to already exist at history of the race and intelligence controversy (this point plus the a) point above has led to concerns that we are looking at a WP:POVFORK), the article attracts problematic editors, that it relies too much on old or unreliable sources and perhaps WP:MEDREV would apply (some have posted vaguely explained sources to counter this argument), that we can't have an article on such a topic as "race" isn't defined the same in every places (i.e WP:NOR concerns), that it appears to serve to push a fringe POV, that the existence of similar articles is not a reason to have this one per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and has lead to accusations of racism against Wikipedia.

On the keep side we have the statement that the topic is notable and needs to be discussed in some way, that the existence of articles on related topics does not mean this one needs to be deleted, that many of its concerns can be solved by editing in lieu of deletion, contestations that the article title does not insinuate that intelligence is correlated to race, that the article has been kept at prior AFDs and AFD not be the place to deter, that it can't be a POV fork of the ...and genetics and Heritability of IQ articles as it came first, that being a POV fork is not a deletion reason, that not having this article but having history of the race and intelligence controversy makes no sense, that there are in fact correlations between race and intelligence, that we don't delete articles for being controversial/uncomfortable simply for being controversial/uncomfortable per WP:NOT#CENSORED, and that there are similar articles on similar topics. I am not so sure what "NARD" in Peregrine Fisher's argument is supposed to mean as WP:NARD is a redlink, and have some difficulty understanding Tickle me's argument as well. Some additionally have proposed the development of a disambiguation, or a redirect to another article (several candidate targets have been proposed), or a retitling to mend the concerns about the title being insinuatory.

On balance, it looks like we have a consensus that the topic is notable and that being contentious isn't a reason for deletion (in the sense that only a few people have supported this deletion rationale), most arguments have equally compelling counterarguments in some way (e.g on the title) but it's not clear if it should be covered at Race and intelligence or in the various sub-articles mentioned w/o a central race and intelligence article. There are a bunch of weak arguments on both sides (in particular, vague arguments that do not quite address the counterarguments) and it seems like a few delete arguments (the sole WP:NOR concern given by HiLo48, the concerns about the quality of its current sourcing which are admittedly somewhat vague) haven't been addressed although that isn't really enough to justify deletion on its own. The delete arguments go into much more detail about why they feel that the topic is duplicative to the other articles mentioned than the keeps go into explaining why it is unique - they often appear to be a little too much "keep, it's different" or "keep, it's necessary" with no explanation of how or why this should override the duplication concerns, and there are some points (e.g Grayfell's) that most of the distinctions are due to improper source usage in Race and intelligence that haven't been effectively rebutted as far as I can see. Perhaps the strongest point of contention is whether this is actually a deletion reason, but as pointed out WP:DEL-REASON §5 allows forks to be deleted (it and WP:CFORK also do not require the fork to be more recent than the original article). That suggests that we actually have a delete consensus here. Alternatively, rather than delete one could disambiguate or redirect the topic, but it doesn't seem like we have a consensus on what a redirect target would be or what to put on the disambiguation and either solution can be implemented after a deletion as well (normally when AFDs have competing redirect proposals, that justifies a deletion if no redirect is clearly preferred).

Ending with a procedural note, given that both the article and the talk page are well north of 5000 edits local admins can't delete it; if a consensus for deletion ensues we'll need to ask a steward at meta:Steward requests/Miscellaneous to delete the article and its talk page. This has never been considered a reason to not delete a topic, so if a delete consensus arises a request will be filed there. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:17, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly that took a lot of time to research and write, which I don't think anyone is paying you for, so thanks.

This statement appears wide of the mark: "The delete arguments go into much more detail about why they feel that the topic is duplicative to the other articles mentioned than the keeps go into explaining why it is unique"

From the delete side, the AfD nomination asserted that everything can be found in the related articles, and Delete voters then repeated that assertion as fact. What you remember as detail was one user sealioning those who disagreed, and without engaging specific counterarguments.

From the keep side, I posted a detailed comment (so detailed it was characterized as WP:BLUDGEON), about why the content is not duplicated at other articles. I'll quote part of it here:

——————

"Race and intelligence" is a loose way of referring to a more specific subject "group differences in cognitive tests such as IQ". The core content of an article on group differences on IQ-like tests, will therefore be statements of the form "group A and group B differed by amount D on measure M". The most notable such material in the article, and the center of the controversy, is the statement about a one standard deviation black/white IQ gap in the USA.

Race and genetics article has no such comparative data, since it does not contain the word "IQ". The Heritability of IQ article has no such data, since it does not discuss "race". Scientific racism doesn't have it. The closest is history of the race and intelligence controversy which has no direct discussion of the IQ test score gap. It mentions differences in US scores once or twice in passing when quoting other material, buried under a mountain of other historical-political controversy stuff, not relevant to the question of group differences and how to explain them.

If the objection to having this material on WP is simply that publishing the sentence "whites outscore blacks by one Standard Deviation on IQ tests" is unacceptable, being somehow racist or impolite or helping Bad People, that should be stated clearly as it is a censorship policy. If the IQ data are considered OK, but the objection is to any discussion whatsoever of the possibility or probability of a genetic explanation for that data, that too is a censorship policy that should be articulated before it is acted upon. (There is no current basis for such censorship on the grounds of "scientific consensus", which is very much unsettled.)

———————

re: "there are some points (e.g Grayfell's) that most of the distinctions are due to improper source usage in Race and intelligence that haven't been effectively rebutted as far as I can see."

I would be interested to know what points you consider unrebutted.

Grayfell did not provide any example of improper source usage, and merely asserted in generalities that it was there. When I asked what he was talking about, there was no reply although the thread lasted several days longer. I don't see how this can be described as a failure to effectively rebut Grayfell's point when he never elaborated on what the issue was or how it could rise to the level of invalidating the article (as opposed to a minor problem correctable by adding a few more references).

These seem like important factual questions, in that the proposed decision hinges on the idea of a silent consensus being formed through lack of rebuttal. But there were rebuttals, indeed unanswered rebuttals, especially on the critical point about being a POVFORK or not. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 09:44, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a completely cut and dry keep, except that people think this is racist. Pretty fun test of WP's rules. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 09:34, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Race_and_intelligence

Note: the following has been moved from User talk:RoySmith

I have closed the Race and intelligence DRV: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 February 12, and noted that the consensus is for you to be involved in the blue-ribbon committee to reclose the AfD. The other admins named are User:Jo-Jo Eumerus, User:Barkeep49, User:Mazca, and User:Scottywong. I am approaching them all to let them know. Enjoy! SilkTork (talk) 12:44, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. Sort-of :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 13:51, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know Roy and I are confirmed for this. Last I saw Jo-Jo Eumerus had decided not to be a part of it owing to their draft close being published. Mazca, Scottywong are either of you interested in joining a closing team? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:27, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've got feelers out to everybody in email. I'll coordinate with everybody once I have all the email addresses collected. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:31, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've got it. I'll wait a bit, first - for one thing Amakuru has objected to my participation as did some other editors and I want to see that issue cleared up. For the other thing, even if these concerns are invalid Literaturegeek's concern at AN that my post on the deletion review page prejudiced a panel indicate that I should wait until the other admins have made their assessments before opining. And if Scottywong and Mazca join, then it won't be necessary for me to partake. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:43, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Barkeep49, can you point to where Jo-Jo Eumerus had decided not to be part of a reclose. If the AfD was to be relisted there would be grounds for Jo-Jo recusing, but if this is just to be a reclose of the existing AfD, then I see no grounds for excluding Jo-Jo, and mentioned that in my close. Though some objected to Jo-Jo, the majority supported either Jo-Jo's close or Jo-Jo's involvement. In a sense, Jo-Jo need do no more as their close is already written, and can be included in the blue-ribbon committee close as it is. If new material comes to light which may impact on the close, then relisting would be appropriate, and Jo-Jo's close would no longer stand. But if you're all going to reflect on the AfD as it was at the point Jo-Jo placed the closing template, and wrote their close, then Jo-Jo's close is fine. SilkTork (talk) 16:47, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have the comment by Jo-Jo - "I see there are at least three or four admins other than me who are volunteering to be a new panel, anyway, so I'll probably step aside unless the DRV close says otherwise." Any one of you may decide not to take part for any reason - we're all volunteers, and should not feel obliged. However, @Jo-Jo Eumerus: was the name most put forward as the one who should take part in a reclose. SilkTork (talk) 16:56, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Jo-Jo Eumerus: thanks for the ping and just to clarify, this is nothing personal against you and I am certainly not questioning your judgement or suitability to close discussions. Those are beyond doubt, as you are a seasoned editor and admin. My only concern is that, having already reached a conclusion on the outcome of the AFD, you're at this point somewhat WP:INVOLVED in the matter. My preference, if a re-close is necessary, would be for a panel to approach the issue with fresh eyes and, as Roy suggests, to confer and debate offline if possible so that a joint close can be arrived at. I think we would be less likely to end up back at DRV that way too, whatever the outcome. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 16:52, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amakuru - What folks in the DRV were calling for was an overturn either to No consensus or to reclose, with explicit support for either Jo-Jo's existing close or involvement in a reclose. A reclose of the existing AfD by Jo-Jo should not be seen as involved, as Jo-Jo was not involved in the article nor the AfD. Jo-Jo's existing close rationale can be used with no policy based problem because what we are looking at is simply a reflection on the AfD at the same time that Jo-Jo wrote their close. Nothing has changed to the AfD or the article. If the article has changed significantly then a relist would be in order, and at that point Jo-Jo would need to consider if they were still able to be impartial. But as things stand, there is no Involvement. Nor is there a need for discussion away from Wikipedia. Nor, indeed, for the committee to coordinate their thoughts (though coordinate their actions would be useful). Up to them how they do it, but when I've previously been involved in dual or committee closes, each party involved in the close made their own individual assessment, and wrote out their individual rationale. This could be posted simultaneously or individually - up to those involved. But I would urge the committee to decide on a platform (here is fine, though perhaps Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Race and intelligence (4th nomination) would be better) in which to coordinate matters, and to keep everything open in the Wikipedia way. SilkTork (talk) 17:09, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SilkTork: That's not how it should work at all. If each panel member is simply making an individual decision, that's all the more reason to just use the 15 !voters at the DRV who said it was no-consensus. Clearly this is a thorny issue, and many closers are applying their own values into how they assess the !votes in the discussion. And in that situation, just making it a race to 2 votes from 3 as to which outcome wins isn't the purpose of a panel decision at all. The panel are supposed to debate offline, thrash out the various opinions, and hopefully come back with a consensus decision. That's what happened at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request, which for me remains the gold-standard in panel closes. Firm reasoning, bullet-pointed out, and signed off by all panel members.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I anticipate a process similar to what Amakuru describes of agreeing to a close via email and coming back with a unified statement that all members of the team can stand behind. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:51, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SilkTork I do not feel you considered “consensus” appropriately relating to Jo-Jo’s involvement; I made the point that not one single keep voter endorsed Jo-Jo to be one of the closers, but the large majority of people, probably all of the people, endorsing Jo-Jo being on the close panel were delete supporting editors. You did not acknowledge this in your closing summary of the AfD review page and I ask you to perhaps consider amending your closing summary. So the consensus as you call it comes from one side of the community but not the other, hardly a consensus. The previous, at least three, AfDs for this article all came back as keep and the strong arguments for keep were the same as the previous ones, and the consensus on AfD review page was one of ‘over turn to no consensus’, but yet two admins — Spartaz’s and then Jo-Jo — both did bizarre close or proposed closes that go against previous consensus at three AfDs and the deletion review consensus of no consensus (reached after they did their close and proposed close). I can’t help but think that two delete supporting admins took the opportunity to write a close that supported their own opinion on the existence of the divisive article rather than following policy against the arguments.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:15, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to help if I can. If you decide that you'd like 5 people on the committee, I'm happy to participate. If it's decided that a 3-person committee would be better, I'm also fine with bowing out. However, I'm not sure I understand the need for an offline debate. Why would we need to hide the "blue ribbon committee" discussions from the public? I don't think it's particularly important for anyone to actually read those discussions, but I believe that WP has always been based on transparency, and there is no good reason to make those discussions inaccessible to someone that wants to understand how the decision was made. ‑Scottywong| [squeal] || 19:18, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. It's up to the committee to decide on how to do things, but I would be disappointed if it was decided to hold a discussion in private, other than simple planning - though even the planning can and should be done here on Wikipedia. There would need to be a clear rationale for holding any significant discussion in private. SilkTork (talk) 19:41, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

End of text moved from User talk:RoySmith

User:Literaturegeek. I'm not following your logic. Could you explain it further? There are people who are ivoting to endorse the delete close who support Jo-Jo, and people who are ivoting to overturn the delete close who are also supporting Jo-Jo. That is people on both sides of the debate I was looking at. Endorse and Overturn are opposite results. And if I were to interpret all ivotes supporting Jo-Jo as one's indicating delete as an outcome, then there are 19 ivotes for endorse or close by or per Jo-Jo, 14 ivotes for No consensus or keep, and 14 ivotes for overturn with some other outcome not mentioning Jo-Jo, though most are for a relist or reclose of some sort. Whichever way I stack it and read the comments, there is a strong support for Jo-Jo to be involved. Now we are all volunteers, and that I closed it as indicating that there is a consensus for Jo-Jo to be involved in a committee to reclose the AfD doesn't mean Jo-Jo has to do it. Jo-Jo also has a choice in this. And if Jo-Jo feels there is too much controversy for them to be involved, then so be it - that's their decision. But I can't see how I can read the outcome of the DRV differently than that there was a strong call for Jo-Jo to be involved, regardless of the intentions of those calling for it - and if the intentions of those calling for Jo-Jo to be part of the reclose team were because they were in favour of deletion, then that is not clear in the DRV discussion, and it would be inappropriate for me to read into people's comments an intention that is not clear. Anyway, the committee is to be three or five experienced admins, so Jo-Jo's part will be either one third or one fifth of the final decision. And I find it odd that anyone wanting deletion should call for a committee to reclose rather than simply endorse the delete close. SilkTork (talk) 20:19, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well I can see your point of view, it is a tough one. I withdraw my suggestion that you were biased in your summary. Jo-Jo is not sure they want to be on the panel now anyway. If this is the case: What did you think of my suggestion that @Sandstein: join the panel? Perhaps you did not mention it in your close summary because they did not provide an opinion on joining the panel. Perhaps they did not see my suggestion as I forgot to ping them, but have pinged them here. They have a very in-depth knowledge of policy and are good at forming opinion without personal bias. I do not know them off-wiki and have almost never interacted with them. So I have no idea how they would close except that I would trust they did so within policy.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:44, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think we're putting the cart before the proverbial horse here. Let's first let the willing panelists decide whether they wish to serve or not. If we end up with three or five panelists, great. If we end up with four, let's let them decide whether three or five is preferred. In short, let's bow out now, and let the panelists put themselves forward. Doug Mehus T·C 20:52, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

−

For what it's worth, after mulling over this today I'll recuse. While I suspect there will be complaints no matter who closes the AFD at the end - and it might be taken as subverting the DRV close - I'll play this as a "better safe than sorry" case. Literaturegeek, some of your comments are pushing the envelope of WP:ASPERSIONS with the assumptions you are making of other people's motives. I'd recommend that you refrain from doing so. JoJo Eumerus mobile (main talk) 20:51, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so it looks like User:Barkeep49 and myself for sure, User:Jo-Jo Eumerus has recused, User:Scottywong is willing and User:Mazca (based on off-wiki communication) is willing to be drafted if we needed him to make an odd number, but would also be happy to sit out. So, I'll propose that it's Barkeep49, Scottywong, and myself. As for whether we work on or off wiki, I have no strong preference. Off seemed simpler, but Scottywong feels on would be better. That opinion has also been expressed by others on this talk page. So Barkeep49, if you have no objection, I suggest we proceed with our deliberations in a fishbowl. Perhaps Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Race and intelligence (4th nomination)/Panel discussion would make sense? We can do our work there, and the peanut gallery can kibitz on the talk page. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:54, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since the concern was brought up I've been thinking "Is this more like drafting a proposed decision or is it more like voting on a proposed decision" because drafting a proposed decision is obviously a case when there is offwiki writing. And I don't know what I think the answer to that is.

I admit to some unease in for two reasons. First, unlike in an ArbCom case I don't think people giving us feedback as we attempt to come to consensus will be helpful - I really think between the AfD, DRV, and now here what's needed to be said has been said and it's the job of the panel to weigh it appropriately to find what the consensus of the AfD was. Unlike ArbCom we're not making a decision merely reflecting back the consensus (or lack of consensus) that was already present by the participants. Second, I think part of the power of a panel close is three united sysops. To whatever degree we disagree in the process of writing the close could be used against that eventual close in a way that would rob it of some of its legitimacy. Ultimately I'm not willing to throw my body across the tracks about this - I respect our culture of transparency too much. But I do want to raise these two points before we just do it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:11, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To look at two models: crats tend to deliberate on-wiki and arbs tend to deliberate off-wiki. In the end, whose decisions are more widely accepted: crats or arbs? Levivich (talk) 22:26, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is a proposed decision page if not an on-wiki discussion? I guess I'm missing something where a lot of deliberation happens off wiki for the stuff we see onwiki. From what I understand what happens offwiki are appeals and coordinating things (who is going to be the drafting Arb, what's the name of the case). So I guess I don't accept the premise of the question. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:10, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I always thought the PD page discussion was preceded/accompanied by mailing list drafting by the drafters and/or whole committee. Levivich (talk) 02:39, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As RoySmith mentioned I can confirm was happy to be part of the panel but my primary interest is in making this already awkward process as easy as possible, and given the understandable recusal of Jo-Jo Eumerus I'm happy to not be the even-numbered participant that makes a decisive decision more difficult. I very much get Barkeep49's point that airing all the minutiae of the discussion potentially undermines it when we do really want to come to a solid conclusion of an immensely contentious issue. I'd say discuss off-wiki if you think it's sensible, but this does have more in common with a bureaucrat discussion of a contentious RfA than it does an ArbCom decision, as it's a consensus-analysis rather than an evidence-analysis process. Be as transparent as you can, but within reason! ~ mazca ^talk 23:47, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Arbcom deliberates off-wiki because they are often discussing information that is either sensitive or private. We're not discussing anything that is sensitive or private, so the only reason to discuss things off-wiki is to obscure the discussion in order to provide the illusion of "three united sysops", when that unity may or may not actually be there. If we're truly not united in our decision, then I believe that it should affect the impact of our closure. If the three of us can't find an agreement that we're all comfortable with, then why should we confidently present a result to the community that makes it appear to be a stronger consensus than it really is?

Anyway, you all seem like reasonable people, and I think it's unlikely that we'll get mired down in an intractable argument. I'm ok with doing it off-wiki if there is a strong preference to do so. My personal preference would be to discuss it on-wiki, but to disallow participation in the discussion by anyone else (perhaps by temporarily protecting the page while the discussion is ongoing, if necessary). ‑Scottywong| [gab] || 00:58, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Both the AFD and the DRV for this article attracted participation from a broad cross-section of the Wikipedia community, but for the past few weeks the article itself and its talk page have been dominated mostly by those who voted to delete. This has resulted in what looks to some of us like an attempt to delete the article one section at a time. Some recent attempts at this are here, here, here, here, and here.

In all of these cases, the material being removed had been stable for years, and the delete voters have demanded a consensus before it could be restored. The rapid pace of these removals also has made it very difficult to have an in-depth discussion about any of them. A closely-related problem is that several of the same editors do not seem willing to accept the consensus at the RS noticeboard that a certain category of source is reliable. There is a stark contrast between the views expressed by mostly uninvolved editors at the RS noticeboard, and those expressed by the group of editors most active on the article talk page.

If the article ultimately is kept, I think the Wikipedia community has a responsibility to try to achieve some degree of long-term stability on the article. That will only be possible if the article consistently receives attention from people who don't have a vested interest in a particular outcome such as deletion, but whose overall goal is instead for the article to be edited in a manner that's consistent with policy.

Most of the people involved in the discussion on this page seem committed to following the correct process with respect to whether to delete the article or not, but could any of you please become more involved in what's happening on the article itself? @Snowded: @Jweiss11: both of you were involved in some of the earlier discussions about attempts to delete the article one section at a time, so your attention would be especially helpful. 2600:1004:B146:326B:ECD8:B0F4:F440:4BE1 (talk) 05:35, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article is being edited by the same group of editors that have been there all along. I don't see an influx from one side or another, and before the AfD the article was twice gold locked over edit warring this year. Pouring in new editors is unlikely to aid the situation if it simply reinforces polarisation. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:20, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We have a well referenced article that's been sitting around for ten years. Lately there's a group of editors that think the only good edit is one that removes 1000-5000kb of text. And that each removal like that should be backed up with edit warring. I'm going to go out on a limb, and say there are more than 20 edits removing 2000kb of article each in the past couple months. And everywhere those removal geniuses go, they find consensus and policy against them. It's pretty silly. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 08:33, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sirfurboy: The current trend started before the AFD, but not a long time before. It started in December, and then rapidly accelerated around the time that the AFD got underway. Before December, the article had been mostly stable for at least 5 years. I don't know for exactly how long, but when I compare the version from the beginning of December to versions from 2015, there are only minor differences.

These editors definitely were not there all along. A lot of them seem to have been recently recruited to the article in a non-neutral way. Some examples of the recruitment efforts are here, here and here. The last message was posted on the talk pages of five different Wikiprojects.

If you look at the comments to the first linked post, the comments there from some of these editors definitely imply that this was what motivated them to become involved in the article, and some of them had not participated in the article prior to that point. 2600:1004:B112:19F4:748E:E57B:DD2C:7DF9 (talk) 09:14, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but you appeared to be saying the AfD had pulled in a lot of "delete" voters as new editors. I now understand you were not saying that, but that new editors came in as a response to an editor request, posted on related pages, for more editors prior to the AfD. I don't see how that is "a non-neutral way," when the notice is placed on the talk pages of related pages where any editor can respond. It is not like going up to an editor who you see as being on your side, and actively attempting to recruit them to the page,as here. However each editor can and will decide for themselves what they will get involved in, and I am not going to attempt to dissuade anyone, so I shall say no more. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:37, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When I said that editors were recruited in a non-neutral way, what I meant was that the notices were written in a way that was likely to bias the reactions of whoever responded to them. For example, the notice that was posted on the talk page of Scientific racism and five WikiProjects included a link to this article from the Southern Poverty Law Center. That SPLC article makes a very specific argument that Wikipedia's articles related to this topic are being manipulated by "neo-Nazis, white nationalists and racist academics seeking a wider audience for extreme views". Recruiting editors with that argument is an example of poisoning the well. 2600:1004:B112:19F4:748E:E57B:DD2C:7DF9 (talk) 11:06, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that the panel has reclosed the AfD discussion. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:13, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]