Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Race: The Reality of Human Difference


 * 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. J04n(talk page) 18:13, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Race: The Reality of Human Difference
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not satisfy WP:NBOOK. The only independent coverage is a handful of academic reviews. This is not enough to establish notability per criteria #1 of WP:NBOOK: The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself. aprock (talk) 16:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly there are plenty of reviews of the book in academic circles:  and it seems to have caused some controversy. Don't have the time to write the article, but listed it at Article Rescue Squadron - Rescue list Sadads 01:56, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. With the rather stringent search for {"Race: The Reality of Human Differences" Sarich} I find 140 hits on GS and 40k hits on G, so it seems to well noted. Article needs expansion. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:09, 22 February 2013 (UTC).


 * Comment Google searches results are not enough to establish WP:NBOOK. As best I can tell, those results refer to a handful of reviews from minor publications, and little else.  aprock (talk) 02:24, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Publisher's weekly and the University of Nebraska Lincoln are hardly minor publication venues, besides Skeptics Magazine, etc. Sadads (talk) 02:26, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * One author is a senior editor at Skeptics Magazine, so that can't be considered for notability. I don't think it's the case that two academic book reviews are enough to establish notability for books. aprock (talk) 02:47, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * There is a review in Nature with 200 cites itself. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:37, 22 February 2013 (UTC).
 * That is not a review of that book. It appears to be a general review, which cannot be used to establish notability for a book. aprock (talk) 02:47, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Skeptic magazine reviews it in detail . Other reviews have been found as well.   D r e a m Focus  02:40, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * One author is a senior editor at Skeptics Magazine, so that can't be considered for notability. aprock (talk) 02:47, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't notice that. Publisher Weekly I believe is a reliable source, and it does review the book.    D r e a m Focus  03:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The online edition of a print newspaper found in various nations gives a long review of it also. It has been accidentally placed on the Wikipedia blacklist, I filing a complaint to remove it from there just now. www eutimes net/2007/08/race-the-reality-of-human-differences-book-review/   D r e a m Focus  03:17, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, you didn't look at that "newspaper" much at all, or for information about it, much at all, did you? because stuff like this is really, really easy to find, and clearly propaganda: www.eutimes.net/2011/11/obama-issues-ron-paul-kill-order-as-russia-prepares-for-war/, as is criticism of the site.  The first google autosuggestion when you type in the name of the paper adds the word credible, too.  :) --j⚛e deckertalk 15:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Looking at their "about" page, and looking at the front page of the site, there is nothing to suggest they aren't credible. How deeply do you think someone would look?  You just happened upon a random article which shows they aren't reliable, since they publish total nonsense like that.  No crazy article like that is currently on the main page, so there was no obvious way to know they were like that.   D r e a m Focus  15:24, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe their presence on the blacklist isn't accidental? aprock (talk) 18:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep: dubious nomination: "a hanful of academic reviews" is a derogatory expression for "multiple non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself". - Altenmann >t 04:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * So far we have two reviews. That's it.  I've spent time looking for other remotely reliable sources which deal with the book as a topic, and I haven't come up with any.  If that's all that's required to satisfy WP:NBOOK, I'm fine with keeping the article.  That's not how I read WP:NBOOK, but I'm perfectly happy to see others support a more permissive reading. aprock (talk) 06:50, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTABILITY is determined by seeing if an article meets the General Notability Guidelines or one of the subject specific guidelines. It doesn't have to meet both.  Anything that gets two or more reviews passes the GNG, that's how its always been.   D r e a m Focus  20:23, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, hence the reference to WP:NBOOK. aprock (talk) 20:32, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Journal of Clinical Investigation seems to be a reliable source. Published in Volume 113, Issue 12   D r e a m Focus  20:32, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If it's the case that these book reviews confer notability, then I would be happy to see the article kept. aprock (talk) 20:36, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That is why every single other person so far has said KEEP. You can withdraw your nomination.   D r e a m Focus  20:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Consensus cannot go against policy. Based on my reading of policy, there is no reason to withdraw the nomination.  I've repeatedly looks for any substantial presentation of the book, and have come up with nothing significant outside of a few contemporary book reviews. aprock (talk) 20:58, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Your nomination is fine and base on good reasoning. Keep it open. However, I'm not sure what you mean by substantial presentation of the book. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:40, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - Books are a tougher AfD topic. Other than review of the book and cites by others to passages in the book (which actually are not about the book as a discrete unit so they may not necessarily contribute to the book itself being the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works), what else is there? Book turned into to a movie? A book receiving an award is only good to the extent people write about it. In any event, here is some information: Significant coverage: . Also see, , , . Other coverage: , , , , , , . -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:40, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course, does any source really discuss the book as a discrete unit? It usually is about the information provided in the book. If found in reliable sources, the book article can go into the effort to create the book and people's reaction to the book (e.g., on awards/ranking lists) once published. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:54, 27 February 2013 (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.