Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intelligence in Nature


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 09:08, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Intelligence in Nature

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

One book review, I am unsure this passes GNG. Slatersteven (talk) 18:52, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Slatersteven (talk) 18:52, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * One review in a highly specialised journal - which isn't even used in the article - isn't even enough for WP:GNG, and it falls pretty hard afoul of "Articles that are just plot summaries" in WP:Notability (books). Delete. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.8% of all FPs 19:02, 13 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete for failing WP:GNG. Normally I'd recommend merging the well-sourced content into the author Jeremy Narby's page, but that only consists of one book review with a dead link (rest of the article is sourced directly to the book itself, which speaks to the lack of general notability). Bakkster Man (talk) 19:10, 13 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete. My searches found only the Webb review already listed. Three published in-depth reviews would be convincing, and two would be borderline. But one is not enough for the multiple sources required by WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:16, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I found 2 more, see below CT55555 (talk) 22:31, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete for a WP:BK fail. See also Articles_for_deletion/The_Cosmic_Serpent. jps (talk) 20:50, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

*::I would challenge how you've characterised the second source. The interviewee states that they have been influenced by a handful of books, how they made them feel, etc etc and then mentions 3 or 4. I don't think that would be the textbook example for insubstantial coverage.
 * Redirect to Jeremy Narby for now. See WP:BEFORE or Alternatives to Deletion. While secondary sources may be too scant to support a stand-alone article for this book, the author and his other writing has been covered in enough depth and detail to warrant encyclopedic coverage in some fashion or another. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:50, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I have significantly added to the length of the article, in case that influences you. CT55555 (talk) 21:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep it has a clear pass at WP:BK
 * Here's another review https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/jeremy-narby/intelligence-in-nature/
 * It is discussed here: https://www.npr.org/2007/12/05/16878377/ellen-page-playing-honest-whole-young-women CT55555 (talk) 22:30, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep/Merge/Redirect Respecting the need to reach consensus here, I'll widen the range of outcomes I advocate for towards keeping (my preference) and redirecting and keeping the content on the author's page as an acceptable outcome. And I'll volunteer to do the editing. I've scored out my earlier speedy keep. CT55555 (talk) 15:20, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That second mention is incredibly weak. It is technically mentioned, but with  no commentary whatsoever -  he doesn't even give Narby's name - as the book he was currently reading, and that's it. That's textbook insubstantial coverage. It's literally not discussed at all. The only sentence you can get out of it is "Elliot Page mentioned he was reading it in 2007". Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.8% of all FPs 11:15, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep/Merge/Redirect Respecting the need to reach consensus here, I'll widen the range of outcomes I advocate for towards keeping (my preference) and redirecting and keeping the content on the author's page as an acceptable outcome. And I'll volunteer to do the editing. I've scored out my earlier speedy keep. CT55555 (talk) 15:20, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That second mention is incredibly weak. It is technically mentioned, but with  no commentary whatsoever -  he doesn't even give Narby's name - as the book he was currently reading, and that's it. That's textbook insubstantial coverage. It's literally not discussed at all. The only sentence you can get out of it is "Elliot Page mentioned he was reading it in 2007". Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.8% of all FPs 11:15, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If I wrote 10 sentences about how some books made me feel, and then listed the three of them at the end, is that 10 sentences or a passing mention? You get my point?
 * Let's remember the context already: there is one review in the article. WP:BK needs two. Either way, I think you must accept there are at least 2 reviews, therefore WP:BK criteria is met. There is basically no way that anyone can argue delete in the context of WP:BK being the most relevant guideline. CT55555 (talk) 02:17, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The other relevant (and slightly more strict) guideline would be WP:NFRINGE. In addition to notability, the article also needs to meet WP:NPOV and WP:V, with NFRINGE in particular focusing on being notable enough to have NPOV sources. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:17, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This is not an article about a theory. It's an article about a book. Of course, WP:NPOV applies. It's the other side of this debate who is pushing a POV. Of course WP:V applies to everything and, everything that's why the article says things like "Narby then speculates..." not "It is a fact that..." CT55555 (talk) 18:02, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Having listened to the interview a few times over, I withdraw my disagreement. While, the NPR coverage is more than the words on the page, but not much. You were correct to call it insubstantial and I was incorrect. CT55555 (talk) 04:24, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge/Redirect to the author page, there does not seem to be enough reception of the book itself to write a complete article. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  00:49, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Since your vote, I have added to the length of the article. User:Buidhe CT55555 (talk) 21:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Still don't think that there is enough independent coverage for a balanced article. Therefore merge (t &#183; c)  buidhe  23:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't care Interestingly enough (in my opinion, at least) is that this article was written in August 2007, almost nothing was done to it for 15 years and then, when I make an improvement, it is suddenly sent to AfD. I don't care if this article is deleted, merged or ignored - either way it will no longer be a stub, which was my intention all along. Wyatt Tyrone Smith (talk) 13:54, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect. Clearly not deletion-worthy, given that it has multiple reviews (the standard PW and Kirkus, along with the others in the references) and an obvious redirect target (Jeremy Narby). -- asilvering (talk) 14:29, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you forgot to sign this comment User:Asilvering CT55555 (talk) 15:12, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure did. Thanks for the ping. -- asilvering (talk) 17:23, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Relisting comment: I'm seeing Keep, Delete, Merge and Redirect and in some cases, more than one option presented. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:30, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect both Intelligence in Nature and The Cosmic Serpent to Jeremy Narby. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 18:00, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment as merge and redirect become clearly the likely outcome here, I've edited Jeremy Narby to include the info here, I hope this is helpful. CT55555 (talk) 18:13, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep is now a reasonable conclusion, after the addition of two professional reviews; that constitutes our minimum requirement for book articles. Merging to the author's article would be serviceable as well, but it's currently no longer a strict necessity. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:33, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep per WP:HEY (changed from earlier delete opinion, which I have struck). It now has four published book reviews listed as sources in the article, enough to convince me of a pass of WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:03, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Since this is a book, WP:NBOOK applies. And, given that there are four independent reviews, WP:BOOKCRIT#1 is easily satisfied. If there are issues with content, WP:DEL-CONTENT reminds us that [i]f editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. Since ordinary editing is going to be capable of improving the article in light of the reviews found, the affirmative argument to delete an article is very weak. Since the article passes an WP:SNG and is not excluded under WP:NOT (it ain't just a plot summary anymore), the book merits an article under WP:N. I also don't see any compelling WP:NOPAGE arguments here; it seems like the book is able to stand on its own in terms of coverage and would be handled best in its own article rather than being rammed into a section of a WP:BLP. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 16:42, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete meager sources clearly fail WP:GNG and even WP:HEY falls way too short of keep. --00:20, 30 May 2022 (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.