Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Our Fragile Intellect (2nd nomination)
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
— User:Qwertyus, 13:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Stance: merge
Cited policy: WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE||WP:NOTTEMPORARY||WP:RS (Wikipedia:Notability)