Deletion of Our Fragile Intellect (2nd nomination)

Comment: I think this has been a good discussion that has made a lot of good points about the handling of scientific papers in the popular press. I agree with those points and mostly with the policy reasons for downgrading the article. Basically I am OK with merging it to Gerald Crabtree. But my concern (per {{u|Green Cardamom|GreenC}}) is that bringing over enough of it would overwhelm that article in terms of his overall career. Was it really that important in the course of his career? It seems like there would be problems with  and . In terms of , I think it might be better add a sentence or two about this paper to his article and just leave this article as is, as what it is – a media event, a kind of footnote to a long-standing cultural debate. –&nbsp
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:DUE||WP:ARTICLESIZE)

Comment: to Gerald Crabtree. I agree with nom's and {{U|David Eppstein}}'s reasoning regarding the independent notability of the topic as a scientific publication. Regarding {{U|Margin1522}}'s comment: no, there is no policy or guideline that I know of where citation scores are explicitly used, but there is precedent for using them in AfD debates: a high citation score is a proxy for the availability of supporting or contradicting sources, which can then be inspected individually. Lacking high citation scores, another indicator must be found. I'll repeat my argument from 2013: if the only sources that can be found are news articles, then the publication must be regarded as a news event ("professor publishes controversial theory") and  applies, as well as : "brief bursts of news coverage may not be sufficient signs of notability". In this case, all sources are from November 2012, except a http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/a5af462a-50e2-11e2-b287-00144feab49a.html column in the FT which fails  because its author admits to being poorly informed regarding genetics (and betrays a lacking knowledge of ancient history as well), and a single http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/19459303/1899582139/name/KalinkaAT2013OurRobustIntellect.pdf letter to ''Trends in Genetics
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE||WP:NOTTEMPORARY||WP:RS)

Comment: In the last RfD there were essentially 3 arguments made about the notability of this paper: (1) It was discussed in about 100 articles in the popular press, reaching a far wider audience than ''Trends in Genetics''. Call this the secular meaning of "notable". (2) GNG notable, in that there was enough RS material to write a substantial article. (3) 17 citations in GS is not enough for an academic paper. Now a year has passed and we are back to argument (3). I think the passage of one year is a rather weak reason, given "once a topic has been the subject of 'significant coverage' in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage" (). It looks like (3) has to stand on its own merits, then and now. Is there a policy for papers that stresses the number of citations? Also it seems that we haven't notified {{u|Viriditas}}, who was the creator and main proponent of arguments (1) and (2). –&nbsp
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTTEMPORARY)

Comment: High-profile journals and universities with good publicity machines manage turn several new scientific studies, especially ones with supposedly sensational implications, into media events every week in the sense that lots of newspapers and websites will reprint slightly altered versions of the associated press releases (or superficial commentaries thereon). I think it goes against the spirit of policies such as , , , and  to turn this clickbait material into Wikipedia articles. Crabtree's article is an excellent example of this kind of study: devoid of scientific interest, but intensely publicized for a brief period of time because of its "bold" claims and intense PR efforts
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE||WP:NOTTEMPORARY||WP:ROUTINE||WP:NOTSCANDAL)