Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snyderman and Rothman (study)

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2009 October 27.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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.

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snyderman and Rothman (study)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an article about an article. The news coverage I found about the article amounts to 12 stories that mention it (none that are about it).[1] According to scholar, it is cited 106 times. When looking at the first page of results of the articles that cite this one (again, according to scholar), all 10 of the first results are cited by others more than 106 times (and they are all younger; four are younger by over 12 years). Fails notability in popular press and notability within scientific community. Topic of the article is the perceived state of media bias in 1987. Better used as a source for some media bias article rather than this wp:COATRACK. T34CH (talk) 17:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: While this article has several issues regarding WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV, I think it could be improved in all these respects. There is also the matter of WP:COATRACK, but this can be quickly eliminated in conjunction with the outstanding WP:SYNTH issues. I found slightly more coverage than the 12 stories reported by the nominator, but agree that, while quite a few works quote or reference this work, nothing has been written solely on this report. Nonetheless, I think the report is notable in its own right and worthy of an article. Aryaman (talk) 17:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you found significant coverage specifically about this article? T34CH (talk) 17:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Non notable. Alun (talk) 12:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While this study may not get much coverage in scholarly articles, I believe that the attention it's received in non-academic literature (particularly in books) is enough to establish its notability. --Captain Occam (talk) 10:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you found significant coverage specifically about this article? I showed above that there are none in the popular media. I already asked Varoon for this, but he claimed this request was some sort of provocation. It's actually the standard for establishing notability. If you have references, please list them. T34CH (talk) 18:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

T34CH, try using Google Scholar and search for "The IQ Controversy, the Media and Public Policy", or "Survey of Expert Opinion on Intelligence and Aptitude Testing". I think you'll find slightly more coverage than 12 stories. --Aryaman (talk) 18:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How many times are you willing to prove to the world that you don't actually read what I write? T34CH (talk) 18:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this really the place for you to continue your belligerent behavior towards me? I have tried to keep our personal differences off this page, but you insist on making personal attacks. I've said I've found slightly more coverage than 12 reports, and that I think this report deserves its own article. I'm allowed to voice my opinion on this page, whether you like it or not. Take your personal problems elsewhere and let others voice their opinions without your incessant hounding. You wouldn't be the first person to suggest an AfD and have it denied. At the same time, if it's deleted, it's not exactly a personal victory. Please try to remember that we're writing an encyclopedia. --Aryaman (talk) 18:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's recap:

T34CH - There are 12 incidental sources which mention this briefly in popular media[link]. Also scholar shows the report is relatively rarely cited[link].
Aryaman - There's no coverage on the subject, but I think it's notable.
Occam - Even though there's not much coverage on scholar, it's popular in pop-media.
T34CH - ??? I already showed it's not. Anybody got a linky?
Aryaman - Did you check scholar.
T34CH - Pretty sure we already covered that.
Aryaman - THIS IZ PERSENEL ATTAXXXXX!!!!

Personal opinions are not actually valid arguments here. Try something from WP:PGL. - T34CH (talk) 19:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable on its own, as per search in Google scholar mentioned above.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:13, 25 October 2009 (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.