Deletion of Lewontin's Fallacy

Comment: I've added further sources to the articles, such as http://books.google.com/books?id=OKSL_N0tybsC&pg=PA115&dq=%22Lewontin's+Fallacy%22&hl=en&ei=JQIeTo-DBcXXiALGhe3-CA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Edwards&f=false The SAGE Handbook of Race and Ethnic Studies, http://books.google.com/books?id=rR9XPnaqvCMC&pg=PA406&dq=%22Lewontin's+Fallacy%22&hl=en&ei=JQIeTo-DBcXXiALGhe3-CA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CD4Q6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=%22Lewontin's%20Fallacy%22&f=false The Ancestor's Tale, and http://books.google.com/books?id=KKrsBcU_DikC&pg=PA76&dq=%22Lewontin's+Fallacy%22&hl=en&ei=JQIeTo-DBcXXiALGhe3-CA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CEQQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=%22Lewontin's%20Fallacy%22&f=false DNA: promise and peril. It is also true that Lewontin's Fallacy is clearly the  by far. There is a significant amount of discussion within the academic field about Edwards' paper and it is definitely notable
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Article titles (WP:COMMONNAME)

Comment: mostly per Silverseren.  is more than satisfied: the issue and the argument are clearly notable, as shown by being discussed and referenced in various books and sources. Using  as a guideline is ridicolous, given that scientific papers are absolutely not books and not to be judged as such.  Mathsci seems to argue that we should have ''another'' article about the original Lewontin article, but then  is not a valid argument for deletion (if anything, it is a good argument to write that article). Now, it could possibly be that it has to be renamed, or content refocused (for example including better both sides of the debate to achieve NPOV), but these are content issues and as such they are not grounds for deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NBOOK||WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST)

Comment: per . Something shorter than this might be an appropriate addition to a more general article on race, but standalone and particularly with the current title it is difficult or impossible for it to be neutral
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:SOAPBOX)

Comment: not notable. It's difficult to figure out how to evaluate single articles in the literature, but I think the closest guideline would be 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NBOOK)