The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Appears to fail the relevant notability criteria. Independent sources in the article are limited to a 1-paragraph review from the Times Literary Supplement (with ensuing exchange of letters to the editor) and a blog. I don't see this as "multiple, non-trivial" reliable sources, and I think this book doesn't meet our notability criteria. MastCellTalk 19:31, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Does being a "Times Literary Supplement Book of the Year" qualify as a reward won by this book, which would meet the notability criteria? Best, Purefury182 (talk) 20:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Having read the source in question, it seemed to me that the Times Literary Supplement does not actually hand out "Book of the Year" awards. Rather, they invite a number of prominent people to recommend their favorite books of the year. I know this distinction is pedantic, but I don't see this as an actual literary award on par with, say, the Prix Goncourt, Man Booker Prize, or Pulitzer. MastCellTalk 21:59, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Without (yet) voting either way, I'll simply say that I think it's sad that someone wants to delete an article the existence of which does no harm and which people may actually find useful or interesting. Beyond that, I'm not sure why it doesn't meet the first criteria for notability, since it does seem to have received many reviews. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then perhaps it needs revising? I honestly can't see why you would think it helps Wikipedia to delete the article. Exactly what purpose is any article supposed to serve, other than being interesting and/or useful? You didn't respond to the point about notability; I'm not sure why a book that received so many reviews wouldn't be notable. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As to you question about why "it does no harm" is such a bad argument: articles have costs. We only have so many good copyeditors, so many good writers, and so many people who are competent at getting the plumbing of the articles into shape (making sure references are reliable, WP:MOS compliance, keeping the vandals and hoaxers at bay, watching out for copyright violations and WP:BLP infractions, etc., etc., etc.). Given those finite resources, we want to limit the number of articles we want to take on, and the notability guidelines given us a more-or-less objective way of doing that. So I would turn the question around: why should we pick up articles that don't follow our notability guidelines when we already have such poor coverage on topics we agree are notable? (Rhetorical question, no answer expected.) Lesser Cartographies (talk) 22:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By your logic every article should be considered "harmful." If it's really vandalism at this article that worries you, I will personally see to it that any vandal edits here are reverted. Problem solved. The last sentence of your comment seems to imply that the very existence of this article somehow detracts from the quality of other articles. I hardly think so. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:57, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Will reply on your talk page. This is a discussion worth having, but it's out of scope here. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 08:05, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since there were numerous reviews. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Venema, Dennis R. (December 2010). "Seeking a Signature"(PDF). Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith. Vol. 62, no. 4. pp. 276–283.
Peterson, Dan (September 2009). "Blown Away". American Spectator. Added 00:54, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Ussery, David W. (September 2010). "Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design". Reports of the National Center for Science Education. 30 (5): 39.
Bethell, Tom (July 2011). "A Turning Point in the Evolution Wars?". New Oxford Review. 78 (6): 18.(subscription required) (Review of Signature and two other books.) (6-8 are from the ebscohost bibliography here. I have not yet tracked down pdfs of these articles 6 and 8. 07:42, 10 April 2014 (UTC))
The following are blogs that I consider to be reliable sources, either because a parent publication exerts editorial control (e.g., Chris Mooney's The Intersection blog at Discover Magazine) or because the authors are a recognized expert with multiple peer-reviewed publications in the area. I don't think these should be relied upon to establish notability, but they will help with balance issues. 08:59, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I would also offer up the following blog post authored by Robert Saunders: No Signature in the Cell. Averick wrote his entire article as a rebuttal to this blog post. I'm not familiar with Saunders' work, but I from what little I've gathered it should be straightforward to make the case that this is an expert self-publishing in his area of expertise. I would appreciate feedback on whether or not these reviews are sufficient to establish notability. [added to list above] Lesser Cartographies (talk) 22:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not accept blogs as sources because there is no editorial oversight. The other sources are too few to give notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
WP:SELFPUBLISH provides this exception: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Saunders has a few peer-reviewed publications in this area, so I think I can make a good argument that this is the exceptional case. I'm curious, though, what's your rule of thumb on the number of reviews required to establish notability? Per WP:NBOOK's "multiple, non-trivial" usually aim for three reviews. What's your rule of thumb? Lesser Cartographies (talk) 23:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Interesting science reviewers at the Washington Tines...
Anthony J. Sadar teaches BIO 210 - ID & Evolution at Geneva Collage.
"Geneva holds fast to the belief that the Bible is the perfect, inspired Word of God."
"BIO 210 ID and Evolution (3) This course explores the debate between the proponents of Intelligent Design (ID) and the defenders of Darwinian Evolution, by reading and discussing compelling publications written by each camp. Fall semester, alternate years. Fulfills part of the natural science requirement for graduation but does not give credit toward a major in biology."
"Sadar published his book, In Global Warming We Trust: A Heretic's Guide to Climate Science which contends that modern climate science is the result of a religious cult."
In other words, exactly the sort of person one would expect the Washington Times to hire as a science book reviewer. MastCellTalk 18:22, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple, in-depth, independent third-party reviews exist in reliable sources, and the Washington Times reviewed it, too.... Lesser Cartographies (talk) 09:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep plenty of sources, clearly notable. Don't see a reason to delete. Adamh4 (talk) 18:19, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.