Deletion of Our Fragile Intellect

Comment: Notability does not diminish even if, as suggested by the OP, the coverage has tapered off. The argument by Viriditas that coverage continues is not needed here. The topic satisfies  because it was covered widely
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: to Gerald Crabtree or '''delete'''. Our fragile intellect, Part I has very few citations (8 on GScholar, including one for Part II) and Part II has even fewer, but the article got a lot of media coverage. Therefore, I believe we should properly treat it per . In this frame, I note that the article received the required "significant and in-depth coverage", with multiple major newspapers interviewing various scientists about the article; but it did not "receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle". All the secondary sources are from November 2012
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:EVENT)

Comment: The merge discussions above do not stop me from seeing that the topic meets  because of wide coverage in the media. As such, it can have its own article. I am still in favor of keeping the article
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: This is a '''single''' article that has had a grand total of 8 citations. Yes, 8. As with many journal articles today, there was a brief news blip when it came out (driven by press releases), but then silence. There is no way this passes . I don't usually disagree with Xxanthippe, but the only life this has is that of the Dead Parrot sketch. -- Special:Contributions/101.119.14.244|101.119.14.244
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)