Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lewontin's Fallacy
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
— User:Cyclopia, 16:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:GNG||WP:NBOOK||WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST (Wikipedia:Notability)