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. ✗plicit 14:44, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

30-point rule[edit]

30-point rule (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

This should be deleted or merged to Leta Stetter Hollingworth. The two usable provided sources are not very significant coverage, and the third is a self-published source. I also have some concerns about WP:FRINGE, because the article may be lending the theory more credibility than is proper. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 14:04, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 14:04, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I agree. The theory reeks of pseudoscience, but does not seem to attract enough attention in RS for there to be a meaningful debate about it. NightHeron (talk) 15:58, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 16:14, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychiatry-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 16:14, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 16:14, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This doesn't seem to be an idea actually used in psychology, and it fails the WP:FRINGE standard of being wiki-notable pseudoscience. The first source is an interview with Christopher Langan on a random website for day-trading hobbyists; we'd really have to stretch to call that reliable. The third is self-published, as the nominator pointed out. The one in the middle is the closest to decent: it's a blog post by a subject-matter expert hosted by a publication with at least some standards. It also indicates that the topic is nonsense. The article currently says This theory is usually attributed to psychologist Leta Stetter Hollingworth. The blog post says: As far as I can tell, the idea of the 2 standard deviation IQ communication range did not start with Leta Hollingworth. Hollingworth (1886 – 1939) was a pioneering psychologist who did conduct research on high IQ individuals and published extensively on the topic; however, she never used the term ‘communication range’ nor explicitly discussed such an idea. Instead, the term was coined by some guy writing in the magazine of a high-IQ society. Hollingworth was writing specifically about leadership, and in childen, but Towers extrapolates the point to claim that any kind of ‘genuine’ communication is impossible across a 30 IQ point gap. [...] The reference to specific numbers (“+/- 2 standard deviations, 30 points”) gives the illusion of scientific precision, but these numbers were plucked from the air. Wikipedia is not the place for things made up one day in an attempt to blame other people for one's own failures of communication. XOR'easter (talk) 18:22, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Since this "rule" was not invented by Leta Stetter Hollingworth, a merge/redirect would be inappropriate. Also, it's clearly bollocks, and far from being notable bollocks. Tercer (talk) 13:42, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• 'comment I thought it might be a good article or a good stub. Thanks for the research. I did see a bit on high iq communication problems. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], and [7] BlackAmerican (talk) 22:45, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete in its current form, this is closer to folklore than scientific inquiry, and there isn't enough coverage to justify an article. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:26, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I note a 2017 article which claims a smaller than 30-point rule. There is probably an encyclopedic topic here, but it would require a new title and new article content. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:10, 30 July 2021 (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.