Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sex, Genes & Rock 'n' Roll: How Evolution has Shaped the Modern World


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 17:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Sex, Genes & Rock 'n' Roll: How Evolution has Shaped the Modern World

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Notability has not been established, the review listed in the external links is from a paid service. From the website's faq: "Why should I buy your service when the news is free, right?" and "We filter the information you want" casts doubt on being a reliable source, and the only other external link is a site selling the book. SudoGhost&trade; 02:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

There is now a link to another review, not from a paid service.Arbuthnot101 (talk) 03:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Notability generally requires multiple reliable sources to establish notability. The If you’re an academic and have a book coming out that you’d like reviewed part at the bottom of the newly added site, in conjunction with the disclosed potential conflict of interest on the part of the reviewer make the newly added source not as strong as a source should be for establishing notability on the basis of those two sources alone. - SudoGhost&trade; 04:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The reviewer's Disclosure Statement is that "Mark Elgar receives funding from ARC (= Australian Research Council)." That is required of all contributors to The Conversation who say "Our goal is to ensure the content is not compromised in any way. We therefore ask all authors to disclose any potential conflicts of interest before publication." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robcbrooks (talk • contribs) 04:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The two sites listed are not enough to establish notability, one being a paid service, the other being a site that reviews (seemingly any, but we don't know) book that is sent to the site, by a reviewer with a potential conflict on interest. Not saying he has one, but I'm saying that given the lack of additional references, these two alone are not enough to establish notability. - SudoGhost&trade; 04:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete No notability established.Curb Chain (talk) 05:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * KEEP. I have edited the page to balance the tone and avoid copyright issues, and add additional notability. The new, multidisiplinary book is by a irrefutably credible and well respected young researcher at UNSW Sydney -- see peer reviewed publications It is reviewed by COSMOS magazine, a major Australian monthly publication. The page still needs edits, but should be KEPT. Wxidea (talk)
 * This is a trivial reference, this is little more than a plot summary, and does not provide sufficient critical commentary, this is behind a paywall, but also seems to lack sufficient critical commentary, this is his "summary of publication" from his place of employment, and has nothing to do with establishing notability for this article, this is a very tiny blurb, not even worth being a reference, and the others are explained above. This is the only one that meets the "sufficient critical commentary" requirement. This article has only one reference that contains sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary, thereby failing WP:NB. - SudoGhost&trade; 05:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * keep - SudoGhost is wrong. As per Notability_(books), there is no requirement for citations that establish notability to be available online. New Scientist is a very credible science news magazine, and the New Scientist article is robust ciritical commentary. The fact that SudoGhost can't see the New Scientist article does not mean the source is invalid nor that the article is not notable. Wxidea (talk) 21:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I have seen the article. It does not give sufficient critical commentary as per WP:NB.  Also, as your "keep" comment is already seen above, there is no need for repeating it, so I have struck out the duplicate keep. - SudoGhost&trade; 21:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for removing the duplicate bold 'keep', which I added absentmindedly. Still, the book meets the threshold for notability. There are multiple reviews from credible sources which provide meaningful commentary, more than a simple plot summary (it is non fiction; so plot summary is irrelevant regardless). Coverage in New Scientist is a big deal, and there does not need to be a 5000 word essay. WP:NB does not require lengthy articles. Further, WP:NB specifies in "Academic and technical books" that "Publication by a prominent academic press should be accorded far more weight than the analogous benchmark defined for publication of mainstream book" -- and this book is published by an academic press (New South Books (a subsidiary of UNSW Press, a university press)). Wxidea (talk) 22:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The author of the book is an employee of UNSW, making the weight given by such a publication suspect, by my reasoning. That fact, in combination with the lack of reliable, third party sources that give significant coverage that establish notability, is why I believe this article should be deleted.  The article was added to Wikipedia by the author himself, not by someone who was interested in the subject and believed the article would make a significant improvement to Wikipedia, but by the author, hoping the article would help publicize his work.  This is not what Wikipedia is for.  The article is not notable.  I'm not opposed to it being recreated later if it becomes notable and a good contribution to Wikipedia, but I don't believe that this current article meets either one of those criteria. - SudoGhost&trade; 02:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It is invalid to reject the cachet of being published in a university press because the author/scholar is an employee of the parent university. University presses primarily publish work from their university, though they occasionally also publish in specific fields or take work from scholars at other institutions that do not have their own university press. There is absolutely nothing wrong with an author starting an article after it was reviewed in 3rd party media, and other editors have reviewed the article to check it is not promotional. Wxidea (talk) 06:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The fact of the employment with the same university that publishes the book would not be an issue if it had solid references, but it does not. "There is absolutely nothing wrong with an author starting an article" COI editing is strongly discouraged as per WP:COI.  The article itself was an advertisement, written before the book was even published.  The article was written as a promotional vehicle, and though it has been cleaned, it still gives nothing to Wikipedia. - SudoGhost&trade; 11:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree the original article had COI and also lacked notability, so it was acceptable (albeit hasty and unfriendly to newbies) to nominate AfD. The article is now sufficiently notable; and sufficiently non promotional. Your actions have had the effect of improving the article, though I argue you could have done this in a more productive manner (e.g., notifying the author). My vote for 'keep' remains. Articles are not banned or deleted from Wikipedia just because they start in a weak or unacceptable state. To summarize:

Wxidea (talk) 14:41, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTADVERTISING, WP:PROMOTION - does not apply. Article attempts a neutral tone. It is valid and welcome for wikipedia to include many books.
 * WP:GNG - does not apply. There are sufficient 3rd party reviews for a book from an academic press
 * WP:BK - applies. The article does not violate any of the book notability guidelines.
 * WP:DEMOLISH (Don't demolish the house while it's still being built) - applies. Science literacy is falling worldwide and notable, multidisciplinary books should be described in Wikipedia. More energy would be productively spent by improving the article's summary of the reception by reviewers and cross-linking to other multidisciplinary and popular science books than trying to trash it in this discussion.
 * WP:BARE and WP:MINIMUM - do not apply. The book is above the bare threshold for notability for a book from a university press.
 * WP:CARES - Does not apply. University presses rarely make money, and smart editors who know their industry well believe this book will have a broad readership (which for university presses is typically a press run of 10k copies).
 * WP:IDL - Applies. Dislike for an article is not sufficient to delete it.
 * WP:IS & WP:INDY - Applies. There are 3rd party sources.
 * WP:JNN - applies. Simply stating that a subject is not notable is not sufficient to get it deleted on this basis. Do other editors have any valid reason to this this new book is not notable?
 * WP:OVERZEALOUS - applies. The practice of "dying to" get an article deleted
 * WP:UGLY - applies. Being poorly written is not grounds for deletion. The article could be improved considerably, it has a lot of reviews and is on a deeply interesting topic.
 * WP:POTENTIAL - applies. Articles like this (multidisciplinary & popular science) are useful for Wikipedia, and this article has room for improvement and cross linking to other wikipedia articles.
 * WP:USEFUL -- applies. No one is claiming the article should be kept purely because it is useful.
 * The article is in a better state than it was, but still does not meet the criteria necessary for inclusion on Wikipedia. To avoid listing a dozen policies that can or cannot apply to any given article, I will list one.  WP:TOOSOON, while written for actors and films, applies to books as well. - SudoGhost&trade; 23:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * KEEP. The article is just a week old. Give it a chance to establish notability already. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Notability must be established when an article is created, rather than waiting for the subject of the article to become notable.  TheWeak Willed   (T * G) 15:18, 28 June 2011 (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.