Deletion of On Genetic Interests

Comment: per , , , and . 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE||WP:SOAP||WP:SIGCOV||WP:NOT)

Comment: Having been schooled in my credulousness by ජපස and XOR&#39;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 . 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NBOOK)