Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Our Fragile Intellect (2nd nomination)
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
— User:Margin1522, 23:23, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:NOTTEMPORARY (Wikipedia:Notability)