User talk:Guillaume2303

Hi, and welcome to my User Talk page! For new discussions, I prefer you add your comments at the very bottom and use a section heading (e.g., by using the "+" tab at the top of this page). I will respond on this page unless specifically requested otherwise.

AfD nomination of List of autostereotypes by nation

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of autostereotypes by nation, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of autostereotypes by nation (2nd nomination). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Wikipeditor (talk) 2009-09-10

Talkback

Hello, Guillaume2303. You have new messages at Headbomb's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Christian Scholar

Hi Crusio,

I just wanted to share some info regarding the journal The Christian Scholar. It's mentioned several times in the book [1]. In fact, it's mentioned by name up to 35 times there. The journal is also discussed in another book The University Gets Religion. Anyway, I think the journal is actually notable. --Firefly322 (talk) 18:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• Even if those 35+ mentions in that book could be counted as separate citations (and they cannot), 35 is really an extremely low number for an academic journal. The Christian Scholar is clearly much less notable than Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith and we weren't able to keep that one, so I think TCS is basically hopeless. Best to keep it as a redirect. --Crusio (talk) 01:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The point is that there is major coverage of The Christian Scholar in the book with up to 35 cites. WP:RS can be satisfied more obviously and directly. The journal is important. The problem with PSCF is that no one wants to get into an edit war with "objectivity" warriors who think they are smarter and more objective than God. If only I could be half as smart as they think they are. :-) --Firefly322 (talk) 05:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry, I don't agree. PSCF is of marginal notability. I think it is over the bar, but I can see how others might not agree. We have recently developed notability criteria for academic journals and once those get established more firmly, I intend to take PSCF to AfD as a procedural nomination, because it meets those requirements for notability. TCS doesn't. As I said above, this is not 35 citations, it's one book. That really is not going to impress anybody. As far as I see, TCS does not meet any notability criteria. --Crusio (talk) 11:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

So according to these new criteria regardless of the existence of two books of first-rate scholarship that significantly discuss a journal (in this case, The Christian Scholar) that journal remains unnotable? In regards to the significance of a topic on which to base an article the existence of scholarship on a topic always trumps whatever criteria or policy is available (not to say that such criteria can't be used in the absence of first tier WP:RS such as these.) You honestly think otherwise? --Firefly322 (talk) 02:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Hold on. Because of these two books--written by two different, well-respected historians--The Christian Scholar easily passes criteria 3: "The journal has served some sort of historic purpose or has a significant history." No? --Firefly322 (talk) 02:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's a third scholar mentioning the journal, which provides clear evidence that scholars are well aware of this journal and consider it historically significant. Samuel S. Hill (evidence) --Firefly322 (talk) 02:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's a fourth book (see page 309 n.13) that discusses the journal Princeton in the nation's service: religious ideals and educational practice. --Firefly322 (talk) 03:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry, no. This would not even be sufficient to show notability of one single academic, let alone an academic journal. The obscure ones get hundreds of citations, others go into the tens of thousands. --Crusio (talk) 04:13, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

What? The truth is this journal's coverage in major WP:RS sources is far greater than most. I would say that any objective evaluation would put it in the top 20% of journals for available referanceable source material. --Firefly322 (talk) 22:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• You mention just two books that mention this journal. That doesn't establish any notability at all as it is vastly insufficient. If it is in the top 20% of journals (all of them? You probably mean in a certain category, such as theology journals), you will need much better sources than just that. --Crusio (talk) 22:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

These are two decades-spanning historical analyses: the main one is published by well-respected now retired Columbia University professor. Things that get covered a lot (which this journal did) in such a historial investigation demonstrates that a journal is notable. --Firefly322 (talk) 22:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

For example, according to Douglas M. Sloan the The Christian Scholar's rise and fall is a general indicator (weather vane) of the activities of a lot of major maine-line scholars whose activities were funded by major organizations such as the Danforth Foundation. --Firefly322 (talk) 23:08, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, then. --Crusio (talk) 10:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)