Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Physical intelligence

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 merge to Theory of multiple intelligences. (non-admin closure) buidhe 03:04, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Physical intelligence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Reviewed as a part of new article curation / review. IMO has two closely related problems. Fails WP: Notability under any distinct topic and also does not appear to be a distinct topic. While the term is used in a search of sources that I made, each appears to be a completely different meaning / neologism promoted by each different writer. The article reads like a vague essay and does nothing to identify a distinct topic. The article creator is blocked as a sock and so further development is unlikely. Has been tagged for wp:notability since January 2020. None of the references were accessible on line and so I was not able to / did not review them thoroughly. Three relate to the same person and / their promoted use for the term. (Howard Gardner). One is to his book which appears to be creating his meaning of the term and two others noting or discussing him. While it is unclear what this article is about, some of it appears to related to Muscle memory a topic which already has an article. North8000 (talk) 15:02, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I looked at this as part of new article review too and more or less came to the same conclusion as you. I thought I’d leave it to see what other editors thought but unless anyone comes up with something persuasive here I’ll probably end up !voting to delete. Mccapra (talk) 15:45, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I see a clear distinction between this subject and 'muscle memory'. In addition there are a number of books by a number of authors that have the same title. The subject matter is definitely not made up. article needs more sources to avoid getting nominated againGrmike (talk) 01:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC)grmike[reply]

BTW, from a topic standpoint, I didn't say that it is synonymous with muscle memory. I said that there appears to be no distinct topic, just a pair of words used in varying ways and not in any consistent way. Not in sources and not in the article text. North8000 (talk) 11:45, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per reasons in nom. North8000 (talk) 11:46, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:35, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Closer: Please note that User:North8000 was the nominator and has !voted, which is one editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:36, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: Thanks for the ping. I gather I just did something unusual. If so, was it that I voted besides nominating, or was it that I didn't make it clear that I was the nominator when I ivoted? Thanks. North8000 (talk) 11:33, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:North8000 - You !voted besides nominating. The nominator is assumed to favor deletion, and has already made a nominating statement, and is already counted as a Delete !vote. It is rare but occasionally happens for a nominator to !vote Keep or Neutral, but an explanation of why they made the nomination is in order then. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:02, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon:Thanks. I'm newer at AFD'ing articles.North8000 (talk) 14:08, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As an utter newbie in this, i might write complete nonsense...so forgive me if I will: The term described is an OK'ishly documented theory, and maybe the discussion should be whether the content here shouldnt just be merged into Kinesthetic_learning as a section describing the theory upon which Kinesthetic_learning is reliant? Pratat (talk) 11:52, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Thebiv19 (talk) 19:57, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Thebiv19 (talk) 15:16, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Thebiv19 (talk) 15:16, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I've heard this term in dance education, but still unsure of its notability. Bearian (talk) 15:40, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. Having reread the article, looked at others’ comments and considered the suggested merge targets my thoughts are: 1. Physical intelligence is one of 8 forms proposed in Theory of multiple intelligences, which appears to be notable. 2. Some of the eight forms may be notable in themselves because there’s a substantial body of scholarship about them outside the work of Howard Gardner. 3. In this case it seems to me that there isn’t, so I think we should merge content from here into the Theory of multiple intelligences article. Mccapra (talk) 07:13, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Mccapra. I have searched Google Scholar and not found discussion apart from Theory of multiple intelligences and variants. Daask (talk) 13:00, 1 May 2020 (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.