Deletion of Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations

Comment: per Tim Vickers. Of course geneticists don't cite this stuff, this kind of reasoning was debunked ages ago. Friedrich Vogel, one of the greatest (if not the greatest) postwar German human geneticists used to scoff about this kind of theories that "people don't understand what regression to the mean means". but that's |OR I guess :-). Anyway, the only iteresting part about this book is that it was written by Richard Lynn, who is notable because of his wacky fringe theories
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: I've kind of had my change of  reverted, though I presume it was just because of a misunderstanding. It's probably going to be a controversial change, however. Thinking about it more it seems very strange that an academic book can meet the criteria for a book and still not be notable. I mean, it is a book, isn't it? Would anyone like to attempt to show how it doesn't meet the normal criteria for a book? By my reckoning, it meets them with relative ease, whereas a lot of similar book articles here seem to come up short of the mark (many don't have a single citation, though I rarely see them going in the AfD direction). I appreciate that it's pretty weak on the citations, but I think if it meets the criteria for any book as outlined it the nutshell, it should therefore be notable
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BK)

Comment: The academic world has ignored the work, and the political controversy associated with the work is more attached to the author. |Summary style for a long article does not suggest that this would be a good candidate for spin-out if Richard Lynn (currently 36 kb) grows unmanageably large
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Summary style (WP:SUMMARY)

Comment: As the creator of the article, I'm happy to see the AfD which I requested to begin with, only to find it had been merged while I was on a wikibreak. I wasn't very familiar with the guidelines for academic books, which still aren't very clear for borderline cases. It seems to meet the |notability criteria for a book, but presumably that doesn't apply for an academic book. (I have modified said guidelines to reflect this, which shouldn't cause any fuss if that is the case.) However, it seems that those experienced with this procedure agree with the decision, so merging will have to be enough, even if information on the book is to be lost. By the way, liked Mathsci's comment "name is too complicated". Classic
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BK)

Comment: per  in the merge discussion.  No opinion as to whether '''deletion''' is necessary (or possible, under GFDL, as some information (previously) in this article has been merged), although that would be the nominal purpose of this AfD.  No new arguments against the merge have been presented, no new editors have come out against the merge, and therefore there's no reason to consider the  overturned.  &mdash
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Consensus (WP:CONSENSUS||WP:CONSENSUS)

Comment: The article meets the otability_(books) requirements, "''The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience.''" -- Reviews have been published in 9 different academic journals by different authors. The review by W. D. Hamilton (considered one of the greatest evolutionary theorists of the 20th century) was very positive. In 1996 the book was covered in The Sunday Times which served a general audience. http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/late/dysg_sc.html There were other mainstream articles about the book, like ''"You can't say that!," Antony Flew, The Salisbury Review, Spring 1998.'', but given the age of the book the actual text is hard to find online. Given the amount of references I don't see why the article should be deleted
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)