729:
Interestingly enough (in my opinion, at least) is that this article was written in August 2007, almost nothing was done to it for 15 years and then, when I make an improvement, it is suddenly sent to AfD. I don't care if this article is deleted, merged or ignored - either way it will no longer be a
522:
That second mention is incredibly weak. It is technically mentioned, but with no commentary whatsoever - he doesn't even give Narby's name - as the book he was currently reading, and that's it. That's textbook insubstantial coverage. It's literally not discussed at all. The
550:*::I would challenge how you've characterised the second source. The interviewee states that they have been influenced by a handful of books, how they made them feel, etc etc and then mentions 3 or 4. I don't think that would be the textbook example for insubstantial coverage.
863:
is now a reasonable conclusion, after the addition of two professional reviews; that constitutes our minimum requirement for book articles. Merging to the author's article would be serviceable as well, but it's currently no longer a strict necessity.
504:
Respecting the need to reach consensus here, I'll widen the range of outcomes I advocate for towards keeping (my preference) and redirecting and keeping the content on the author's page as an acceptable outcome. And I'll volunteer to do the editing.
411:. While secondary sources may be too scant to support a stand-alone article for this book, the author and his other writing has been covered in enough depth and detail to warrant encyclopedic coverage in some fashion or another.
202:
640:
Having listened to the interview a few times over, I withdraw my disagreement. While, the NPR coverage is more than the words on the page, but not much. You were correct to call it insubstantial and I was incorrect.
334:. My searches found only the Webb review already listed. Three published in-depth reviews would be convincing, and two would be borderline. But one is not enough for the multiple sources required by
250:
970:. Since ordinary editing is going to be capable of improving the article in light of the reviews found, the affirmative argument to delete an article is very weak. Since the article passes an
986:
arguments here; it seems like the book is able to stand on its own in terms of coverage and would be handled best in its own article rather than being rammed into a section of a
314:'s page, but that only consists of one book review with a dead link (rest of the article is sourced directly to the book itself, which speaks to the lack of general notability).
196:
377:
933:(changed from earlier delete opinion, which I have struck). It now has four published book reviews listed as sources in the article, enough to convince me of a pass of
747:. Clearly not deletion-worthy, given that it has multiple reviews (the standard PW and Kirkus, along with the others in the references) and an obvious redirect target (
559:
If I wrote 10 sentences about how some books made me feel, and then listed the three of them at the end, is that 10 sentences or a passing mention? You get my point?
159:
106:
132:
127:
91:
136:
119:
217:
622:
applies to everything and, everything that's why the article says things like "Narby then speculates..." not "It is a fact that..."
184:
659:
Merge/Redirect to the author page, there does not seem to be enough reception of the book itself to write a complete article. (
86:
79:
17:
876:
735:
706:
664:
273:
178:
999:
946:
917:
881:
855:
834:
795:
781:
760:
739:
717:
692:
675:
650:
631:
609:
583:
541:
517:
496:
485:
434:
420:
389:
362:
347:
323:
294:
262:
242:
163:
123:
100:
96:
61:
385:
892:
174:
479:
454:
1022:
40:
942:
343:
224:
731:
1007:
meager sources clearly fail WP:GNG and even WP:HEY falls way too short of keep. --00:20, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
810:
605:
319:
268:
One review in a highly specialised journal - which isn't even used in the article - isn't even enough for
258:
238:
115:
67:
381:
1018:
963:
416:
36:
791:
756:
190:
938:
339:
210:
959:
814:
995:
903:
I'm seeing Keep, Delete, Merge and
Redirect and in some cases, more than one option presented.
872:
851:
777:
697:
Still don't think that there is enough independent coverage for a balanced article. Therefore
688:
646:
627:
601:
589:
579:
530:
513:
492:
430:
358:
315:
283:
254:
234:
75:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1017:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
983:
830:
702:
660:
412:
404:
57:
570:
criteria is met. There is basically no way that anyone can argue delete in the context of
955:
787:
770:
752:
823:
615:
593:
566:
needs two. Either way, I think you must accept there are at least 2 reviews, therefore
459:
425:
I have significantly added to the length of the article, in case that influences you.
987:
975:
971:
934:
930:
527:
sentence you can get out of it is "Elliot Page mentioned he was reading it in 2007".
408:
335:
307:
269:
600:, with NFRINGE in particular focusing on being notable enough to have NPOV sources.
991:
866:
847:
843:
818:
773:
748:
684:
642:
623:
575:
571:
567:
563:
536:
509:
488:
486:
https://www.npr.org/2007/12/05/16878377/ellen-page-playing-honest-whole-young-women
473:
426:
400:
373:
354:
311:
289:
153:
968:
f editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page
442:
979:
711:
681:
669:
619:
614:
This is not an article about a theory. It's an article about a book. Of course,
597:
53:
480:
https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/jeremy-narby/intelligence-in-nature/
272:, and it falls pretty hard afoul of "Articles that are just plot summaries" in
618:
applies. It's the other side of this debate who is pushing a POV. Of course
842:
as merge and redirect become clearly the likely outcome here, I've edited
310:. Normally I'd recommend merging the well-sourced content into the author
978:(it ain't just a plot summary anymore), the book merits an article under
908:
562:
Let's remember the context already: there is one review in the article.
443:"INTELLIGENCE IN NATURE: An Inquiry into Knowledge by Jeremy Narby"
588:
The other relevant (and slightly more strict) guideline would be
1013:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
958:
applies. And, given that there are four independent reviews,
895:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
680:
Since your vote, I have added to the length of the article.
592:. In addition to notability, the article also needs to meet
251:
list of
Academics and educators-related deletion discussions
962:#1 is easily satisfied. If there are issues with content,
149:
145:
141:
209:
906:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
846:to include the info here, I hope this is helpful.
378:Knowledge:Articles_for_deletion/The_Cosmic_Serpent
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1025:). No further edits should be made to this page.
249:Note: This discussion has been included in the
233:One book review, I am unsure this passes GNG.
223:
8:
107:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
248:
769:I think you forgot to sign this comment
730:stub, which was my intention all along.
507:I've scored out my earlier speedy keep.
967:
7:
574:being the most relevant guideline.
982:. I also don't see any compelling
786:Sure did. Thanks for the ping. --
24:
92:Introduction to deletion process
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
82:(AfD)? Read these primers!
1042:
974:and is not excluded under
353:I found 2 more, see below
1015:Please do not modify it.
1000:16:42, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
954:. Since this is a book,
947:19:03, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
918:23:30, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
882:13:33, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
856:18:13, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
835:18:00, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
796:17:23, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
782:15:12, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
761:14:29, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
740:13:54, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
718:23:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
693:21:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
676:00:49, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
651:04:24, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
632:18:02, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
610:17:17, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
584:02:17, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
542:11:15, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
518:15:20, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
497:22:30, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
455:"INTELLIGENCE IN NATURE"
435:21:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
421:21:50, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
409:Alternatives to Deletion
390:20:50, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
363:22:31, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
348:19:16, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
324:19:10, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
295:19:02, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
263:18:52, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
243:18:52, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
62:09:08, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
472:it has a clear pass at
811:Intelligence in Nature
535:Has about 7.8% of all
484:It is discussed here:
478:Here's another review
288:Has about 7.8% of all
164:edits since nomination
116:Intelligence in Nature
68:Intelligence in Nature
274:WP:Notability (books)
80:Articles for deletion
502:Keep/Merge/Redirect
901:Relisting comment:
815:The Cosmic Serpent
807:Merge and redirect
732:Wyatt Tyrone Smith
463:. January 1, 2005.
920:
880:
833:
508:
447:Publishers Weekly
265:
97:Guide to deletion
87:How to contribute
1033:
966:reminds us that
916:
905:
898:
896:
870:
869:
829:
826:
714:
672:
540:
506:
464:
450:
293:
228:
227:
213:
157:
139:
77:
34:
1041:
1040:
1036:
1035:
1034:
1032:
1031:
1030:
1029:
1023:deletion review
907:
891:
889:
865:
831:problem solving
824:
771:User:Asilvering
712:
670:
539:
528:
453:
449:. 1 March 2005.
441:
376:fail. See also
292:
281:
170:
130:
114:
111:
74:
71:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1039:
1037:
1028:
1027:
1009:
1008:
1002:
964:WP:DEL-CONTENT
949:
939:David Eppstein
923:
922:
904:
899:
885:
884:
858:
837:
803:
802:
801:
800:
799:
798:
764:
763:
742:
724:
723:
722:
721:
720:
657:
656:
655:
654:
653:
638:
637:
636:
635:
634:
560:
547:
546:
545:
544:
534:
499:
482:
476:
467:
466:
465:
460:Kirkus Reviews
451:
438:
437:
413:--Animalparty!
393:
392:
367:
366:
365:
340:David Eppstein
327:
326:
300:
299:
298:
297:
287:
231:
230:
167:
110:
109:
104:
94:
89:
72:
70:
65:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1038:
1026:
1024:
1020:
1016:
1011:
1010:
1006:
1003:
1001:
997:
993:
989:
985:
981:
977:
973:
969:
965:
961:
957:
953:
950:
948:
944:
940:
936:
932:
928:
925:
924:
921:
919:
915:
913:
912:
902:
897:
894:
887:
886:
883:
878:
874:
868:
862:
859:
857:
853:
849:
845:
841:
838:
836:
832:
828:
827:
820:
816:
812:
808:
805:
804:
797:
793:
789:
785:
784:
783:
779:
775:
772:
768:
767:
766:
765:
762:
758:
754:
750:
746:
743:
741:
737:
733:
728:
725:
719:
716:
715:
708:
704:
700:
696:
695:
694:
690:
686:
683:
679:
678:
677:
674:
673:
666:
662:
658:
652:
648:
644:
639:
633:
629:
625:
621:
617:
613:
612:
611:
607:
603:
599:
595:
591:
587:
586:
585:
581:
577:
573:
569:
565:
561:
558:
557:
556:
555:
554:
553:
552:
551:
543:
538:
533:
532:
526:
521:
520:
519:
515:
511:
503:
500:
498:
494:
490:
487:
483:
481:
477:
475:
471:
468:
462:
461:
456:
452:
448:
444:
440:
439:
436:
432:
428:
424:
423:
422:
418:
414:
410:
406:
403:for now. See
402:
398:
395:
394:
391:
387:
383:
379:
375:
371:
368:
364:
360:
356:
352:
351:
350:
349:
345:
341:
337:
333:
329:
328:
325:
321:
317:
313:
309:
305:
302:
301:
296:
291:
286:
285:
279:
275:
271:
267:
266:
264:
260:
256:
252:
247:
246:
245:
244:
240:
236:
226:
222:
219:
216:
212:
208:
204:
201:
198:
195:
192:
189:
186:
183:
180:
176:
173:
172:Find sources:
168:
165:
161:
155:
151:
147:
143:
138:
134:
129:
125:
121:
117:
113:
112:
108:
105:
102:
98:
95:
93:
90:
88:
85:
84:
83:
81:
76:
69:
66:
64:
63:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1014:
1012:
1004:
951:
926:
910:
909:
900:
890:
888:
860:
844:Jeremy Narby
839:
822:
819:Jeremy Narby
806:
749:Jeremy Narby
744:
726:
710:
698:
668:
602:Bakkster Man
549:
548:
531:Adam Cuerden
529:
524:
501:
469:
458:
446:
401:Jeremy Narby
396:
369:
331:
330:
316:Bakkster Man
312:Jeremy Narby
306:for failing
303:
284:Adam Cuerden
282:
277:
255:Slatersteven
235:Slatersteven
232:
220:
214:
206:
199:
193:
187:
181:
171:
73:
49:
47:
31:
28:
960:WP:BOOKCRIT
682:User:Buidhe
470:Speedy Keep
197:free images
788:asilvering
753:asilvering
727:Don't care
590:WP:NFRINGE
1019:talk page
984:WP:NOPAGE
825:ONUnicorn
405:WP:BEFORE
37:talk page
1021:or in a
992:Ⓜ️hawk10
956:WP:NBOOK
893:Relisted
877:contribs
745:Redirect
397:Redirect
160:View log
101:glossary
39:or in a
867:Elmidae
848:CT55555
840:Comment
774:CT55555
685:CT55555
643:CT55555
624:CT55555
616:WP:NPOV
594:WP:NPOV
576:CT55555
510:CT55555
489:CT55555
427:CT55555
355:CT55555
203:WP refs
191:scholar
133:protect
128:history
78:New to
1005:Delete
988:WP:BLP
976:WP:NOT
972:WP:SNG
935:WP:GNG
931:WP:HEY
751:). --
713:buidhe
671:buidhe
372:for a
370:Delete
336:WP:GNG
332:Delete
308:WP:GNG
304:Delete
278:Delete
270:WP:GNG
175:Google
137:delete
54:Stifle
809:both
699:merge
572:WP:BK
568:WP:BK
564:WP:BK
474:WP:BK
374:WP:BK
218:JSTOR
179:books
154:views
146:watch
142:links
16:<
996:talk
990:. —
980:WP:N
952:Keep
943:talk
929:per
927:Keep
873:talk
861:Keep
852:talk
821:. ~
813:and
792:talk
778:talk
757:talk
736:talk
689:talk
647:talk
628:talk
620:WP:V
606:talk
598:WP:V
596:and
580:talk
525:only
514:talk
493:talk
431:talk
417:talk
386:talk
359:talk
344:talk
320:talk
259:talk
239:talk
211:FENS
185:news
150:logs
124:talk
120:edit
58:talk
50:keep
937:. —
817:to
537:FPs
407:or
399:to
382:jps
338:. —
290:FPs
225:TWL
158:– (
998:)
945:)
914:iz
875:·
864:--
854:)
794:)
780:)
759:)
738:)
709:)
705:·
691:)
667:)
663:·
649:)
630:)
608:)
582:)
516:)
495:)
457:.
445:.
433:)
419:)
388:)
380:.
361:)
346:)
322:)
280:.
276:.
261:)
253:.
241:)
205:)
162:|
152:|
148:|
144:|
140:|
135:|
131:|
126:|
122:|
60:)
52:.
994:(
941:(
911:L
879:)
871:(
850:(
790:(
776:(
755:(
734:(
707:c
703:t
701:(
687:(
665:c
661:t
645:(
626:(
604:(
578:(
512:(
491:(
429:(
415:(
384:(
357:(
342:(
318:(
257:(
237:(
229:)
221:·
215:·
207:·
200:·
194:·
188:·
182:·
177:(
169:(
166:)
156:)
118:(
103:)
99:(
56:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.