Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/On Genetic Interests

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:06, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On Genetic Interests[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This obscure book written by an avowed Neo-Nazi seems to have flown mostly under the radar. WP:BK, it seems to me, is not satisfied by the single critique and the two paens written by comrades-in-arms and either self-published or published in obscure neo-Nazi outfits. jps (talk) 13:14, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 13:14, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 13:14, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 13:14, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Salter, AfD for the author of the book. jps (talk) 13:16, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:23, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just to say that I don't think that an author who might be considered "an avowed Neo-nazi" means an article is inherently notable or non-notable. However I don't know enough about this area to know whether this book is notable or not. Seaweed (talk) 13:58, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The issue, as I see it, seems to be that the creation of this page was made to promote such beliefs. jps (talk) 14:15, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (and entirely rewrite) per WP:NBOOK. Reviewed in Twin Research and Human Genetics [1]; substantively discussed—by controversial psychologist J. Philippe Rushton, who taught at the University of Western Ontario so cannot be dismissed as a total kook—in Nations and Nationalism [2] (article notes that Salter commented on a draft, but as the journal is peer-reviewed I'm not sure that's relevant); critiqued by Kenan Malik in [3]. Article's a mess, but the subject is notable. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:00, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, leaning delete. Having been schooled in my credulousness by ජපස and XOR'easter (which I very much appreciate, btw!), I'm now quite undecided. As it now stands, the article features two pieces of critical commentary from apparently legit sources—Kenan Malik and Catherine Nash. Most charitably interpreted, that passes WP:NBOOK. Less charitably interpreted, it doesn't: the mention in Nash's book is only in a footnote, although it's a long footnote. In addition, the book has received some attention from fringe scholars and outright Nazis. That does not confer notability, but I don't think it's outright irrelevant. The Bell Curve, for instance, is also a widely discredited book that (I assume) has received lots of favorable attention from fringies and white supremacists—and, imv, is almost certainly notable. So I'm not sure quite what to think, but I'm trending delete now. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 21:32, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- As a side note, I'm not quite sure this is a WP:FRINGE book or one to which NONAZI applies. It was originally published by Transaction Publishers and then republished by Routledge, a reputable academic publisher (ISBN 9781351502146). Might be a controversialist work—as are many in evolutionary psychology—but I am not convinced it's a white supremacist book. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:29, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you seen what the University of Western Ontario says about Rushton? They seem like they'd be pretty happy with our dismissing him.... XOR'easter (talk) 18:24, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~~@XOR'easter: Just struck that per your note. Not striking my vote, though—I think the refs I've added establish notability. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 18:44, 16 August 2020 (UTC)~~[reply]
    - Glad you think Rushton may not be on the up-and-up. Perhaps you'd like to consider whether the review by the late Hiram Caton deserves consideration from Wikipedia considering his extreme WP:FRINGE viewpoint? jps (talk) 21:22, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Leaving aside the issues of WP:DENY and WP:NOFASH, a more fundamental problem is that the references are all either unverifiable or are self-published. No significant coverage, even within the academic sphere, appears to exist. This looks like an academic's attempt to popularize their work which had little, if any, traction. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:15, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The notability case is dubious at best (for an analogy: Michael Behe works at a university, but if he wrote a glowing review of a creationist book, it would still be support from within the creationist bubble). Even if there were an argument for notability, WP:TNT would apply. XOR'easter (talk) 18:19, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FRINGE, WP:SOAP, WP:SIGCOV, and WP:NOT. We are not a web host for every fringe theory and book that hasn't garnered any real attention outside of the insiders. FWIW, I teach middle school genetics and have never heard of this book. Bearian (talk) 23:58, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, fringe per Bearian PainProf (talk) 03:28, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The book did receive a couple of reviews (negative), but it does not make it notable. My very best wishes (talk) 04:12, 22 August 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.