This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
Well the point at issue is surely: where does this journal sit on the spectrum of "completely rubbish" to "highly notable". Therefore the fact that the Editoral Board has 6 FRSs is relevant. Can you show another science and religion journal that has more? 22:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Have a look here and here. It is accepted practice not to list such kind of things, as it really is not very relevant. The reason for this, obviously, is WP:NOTINHERITED. --Crusio (talk) 22:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
It's just an attempt to make the journal seem more important than it really is, by means of an appeal to authority. All journals that are worth their salt have some distinguished people on their editorial boards. So what? SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 09:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Let's apply the user surprise test here. Someone who wants to know about this journal would come to this article and see not a lot that interested or surprised them. But most wikipedia users would be surprised to learn that a journal with this title had 6 FRSs, 2 FBAs and 1 NAS member on the Editorial Board. It also seems a little unfair to say this "journal isn't notable" and "you must hide information which most people would see as evidence of notability". NBeale (talk) 09:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I still don't think this information belongs in the article (and it is also unsourced and probably WP:OR. However, I'm sensitive to the argument in your final phrase and I won't delete this info from the article for the duration of the AfD should you re-add it. In case the article is kept, I'll delete it again after the AfD, though. --Crusio (talk) 10:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
OK, let's apply the "surprise test". I go to an article about a journal, I see a proud mention of the number of FRSs etc on the editorial board, I think "Oh, this journal can't be much good, it needs to boost its apparent importance by an appeal to authority based on the people who have accepted an invitation to serve on the editorial board." Please AGF - I am trying to improve this article, not conceal useful information. It's just that this sort of information is not useful! SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 16:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I guess the question is "useful to whom?" Unless an article is obviously far too long information which is RS should IMHO not be removed if some readers would find it useful and/or surprising. Esp when a large number of editors have just looked at the article in an AfD we should not "take a machete" to it afterwards. But what do other people think? NBeale (talk) 21:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
The usual standard of 'is it sufficiently noteworthy for inclusion', if the issue is under dispute, is whether it is mentioned in a third party source. Are there third party sources for the makeup (and post-nominal initials) of the Editorial Board? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)