Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evolutionary Biology (textbook)


 * 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. Although some of the arguments given by the "keep" !votes are a bit farfetched, most are to-the-point and supported by sources (which are not yet in the article, I see). DGG's suggestion makes most sense to me, as this textbook, while notable, really is a borderline case. However, as there is no article on the author yet, a merge there is currently not possible. I am therefore closing this as "keep". Any discussion on merging this to a future article on the author can take place on the article talk page. Randykitty (talk) 15:49, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Evolutionary Biology (textbook)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Out-dated textbook that hasn't been updated since 1983. Doesn't meet WP:NBOOK since it is not current for cirricula and not reviewed in current guides. Mikeblas (talk) 15:47, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 21 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Unsourced article with no indication that this text is notable. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 22:45, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. One of many non-notable textbooks. No citations at all that I can find. -- 120.23.87.65 (talk) 00:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. Whether it's "out-dated" or not currently used is completely irrelevant. Likewise, coverage in current guides is not necessary. Was it reviewed in older guides? This seems likely if it was a widely used book, although finding the sources will be a chore. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:31, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. Actually, currency is completely relevant. Textbooks must be current; if they're not updated, they're not used. Since notability is not temporary, current a textbook that isn't updated, isn't used, not referenced by current teaching guides, is therefore not notable by the GNG and NBOOK. -- Mikeblas (talk) 04:04, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you are confusing the question of whether the book is suitable as a reference for other articles with the question of whether it is notable in its own right. The latter is what determines whether it merits an article. For example, the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition is not current, but is still notable. --Sammy1339 (talk) 14:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This textbook would be notable, in spite of being out-of-date, if it had been famous in its day (like the 1942 book Evolution: The Modern Synthesis). Unfortunately, this textbook is not in that category. -- 120.23.92.244 (talk) 01:08, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Notability is not temporary. Whether the book is out of date is utterly irrelevant. If this was notable in the past, it is notable now. In any event, out of date books are bought, read and used all the time. They cost less than new books. We are constantly using out of date books on this website, partly because we have no choice. Plus which, new books are not necessarily better. Up to date information cannot make up for a lack of talent. Useful information is sometimes omitted from a new edition for reasons of space. This book will likely reach the public domain sooner than more recent books. And so forth. James500 (talk) 21:50, 28 October 2014 (UTC) And if this book is so useless, why is it being cited in recent books such as: Columbia University Press, 2013, Springer, 2012, Oxford University Press, 2002? James500 (talk) 22:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete I did find it listed in a bibliography of evolutionary biology, but there were many many other books there as well. It's definitely not "Origin of Species." The information in the article about this textbook is totally mundane, and could be said about any book ever published: "627 pages long" - yep, books have pages; "The book contains an index and various biographical references." - well, if it didn't, I doubt if any textbook publisher would have published it; "The book contains over 25 chapters" - yep, books have chapters, and 25 isn't a HUGE number. Really, there is nothing about this book that rises above "a book." LaMona (talk) 19:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clearly satisfies criteria 1 of NBOOKS with multiple reviews in journals. Contrary to the remarks above, this book has been reviewed: . This comes up immediately in JSTOR on a search of "evolutionary biology"+minkoff, and should have been unmissable. The book has another review in volume 23 of the South African Journal of Zoology at p 250: . There are many other results in GBooks. Dozens at least. James500 (talk) 21:50, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * For the avoidance of doubt, I am of the view that this book clearly satisfies GNG. James500 (talk) 16:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 00:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Relist rationale Sources provided by James500 require consideration. --j⚛e deckertalk 00:56, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have to admit, I'm seeing this book used very, very frequently as a source in Google Scholar (,, , a basic hit shows over 200 links) and in Google Books . Basically, this looks like it was fairly definitive in its field and the amount of scholarly hits for a textbook that old suggests that there are sources, but they're likely ones that did not make it into the online databases. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   03:25, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Repurpose to an article on the author. The author has written a number of college level biology textbooks, and is notable on that basis. This is just one of them, and not necessarily the most important. I could probably demosnrate that this book does meet notability standard, but it will still be more usefu to bring the discussion together with those of the orther books in an author article. I'm prepared to the the basic work for it.  DGG ( talk ) 05:03, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with that- that looks like it'd be an easier task overall as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   09:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete The article makes one claim of notability: "Evolutionary Biology was extremely pivotal in discussing the various viewpoints and theories of meiosis and abiogenesis in relation to the origin of life and the evolution of the biologic species." If a source can be cited for this information then keep. Otherwise delete.  I was not able to read any of the reviews but I suspect they say something like: "This textbook gives accurate information on evolution and would be a good choice for your classes."  As such it has been cited in other books.  But there is no substantial coverage as required by WP policy to establish notability.  I agree that an article on the author would be more appropriate. Borock (talk) 15:32, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The notability guidelines require no such thing. Nor is there any reason why they should. They do however need to be rewritten to stop editors from arguing that no matter how much coverage there is, it isn't significant. If two book reviews in peer-reviewed journals is not significant coverage, nothing is. James500 (talk) 15:56, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * My mistake. The general policy says "significant coverage in reliable sources", not "substantial coverage." I have no objection to the book and an article on it does no harm to anyone.  However I would still say "delete."  Who would read a review of a textbook except professors teaching classes on the subject?  That does not seem like even "significant coverage" to me. Borock (talk) 05:11, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "Significant coverage" has nothing to do with the likely audience. In any event, "only professors would be interested in this" is an argument that would tend to promote the lowest common denominator. No article should ever be deleted on such grounds. In any event, a review of this book might be read by anyone who wanted to assess the utility of this book. That would include students, researchers, teachers, librarians, historians, Wikipedians, and anyone who was sufficiently interested in evolutionary biology to consider buying, borrowing or reading a book on the subject (and there may be many such people). Articles on sources are also important to provide context for Wikipedia's citations. James500 (talk) 17:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I wasn't trying to put down professors. If there is at least one review that is more than a buying guide I will change my vote to keep. Borock (talk) 23:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Reviews are not just buying guides. James500 (talk) 12:17, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep in light of sources discovered by James500. --Sammy1339 (talk) 01:28, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment (but not an argument): A textbook is a conduit to bring information from the sources to the students. A water main is never mentioned unless it breaks and floods the city.  If it does its job it never becomes "notable." Borock (talk) 05:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This analogy is completely superficial. A textbook is nothing like a water main. James500 (talk) 17:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * it's also completely wrong. There are many textbooks, like The Feynman Lectures on Physics, that are famous because they did their job exceptionally well. --Sammy1339 (talk) 21:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * And if there is some evidence that this is one of them I will change to keep. I'm confident it's a good textbook, but not that it is really notable in the WP sense. Borock (talk) 23:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia notability is based primarily on the volume of coverage, which this thing satisfies easily due to the reviews and the sheer number of citations, which are evidence of influence (cf the use of citation counts under PROF). In any event, all serious scholarly literature is important by reason of being what it is. James500 (talk) 12:17, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.