Deletion of Race Differences in Intelligence (book)

Comment: What counts as "independent" reliable sources about the book? I see that the  | notability guideline for books asks us to look for books that have "been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself." I don't think that has happened here. Moreover, the  | general notability guideline reminds Wikipedians to look for a topic that "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" when creating an article. Wikipedia is WP:''not'' | not a directory, and indeed a https://openlibrary.org/ different crowd-sourced project is already attempting to have a webpage for every book. I ask, because there is a book, a reliable secondary source by a professional scholar published by a university press, that points out that many books by Richard Lynn are "reviewed" by reviewers who receive funding from the same ideological funding source that Lynn receives funding from. Below I will include a block quotation from the book (which, oddly, does not appear on Wikipedia with its own stand-alone article, even though it has many independent favorable reviews) to respond to another editor's question here about the reviews that Lynn's book has received
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NBOOK||WP:GNG)

Comment: to Richard Lynn. I don't see a violation of NPOV: there is a lengthy section of criticism and responses. Although you say there is no uptake by serious scholars, the page cites 2 articles in scholarly journals, one of which is a review of this book, and Google Scholar claims 161 citeshttp://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&q=Race+Differences+in+Intelligence%3A+An+Evolutionary+Analysis&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=. There's also a review in ''Education Review''http://www.edrev.info/essays/v14n12.pdf. For me the only issue is whether it should be merged to Richard Lynn (whose article already includes a briefer discussion of the book) or kept; there maybe aren't enough sources yet to establish separate notability, and many sources seem to group together Lynn's ideas from multiple publications, so discussing them all at once makes sense. Remember, Wikipedia is  which means we don't delete discussion of ideas just because we find them distasteful
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTCENSORED)