Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Science and Christian Belief: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 11:13, 4 November 2009

Science and Christian Belief

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

Article previously prodded with reason "Academic journal without indication of notability, tagged as such since August but no improvement apparent. Journal's own website does not give any indications of notability. Does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals)." Article was de-prodded with reason "added citations". However, the added references are to articles written by editorial board members/editors in other journals, possibly showing that they are notable, but not this journal (see WP:NOTINHERITED). Only one reference (to the "Society, Religion and Technology Project") mentions the journal specifically, but this seems rather insufficient to establish notability. Crusio (talk) 01:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 01:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 01:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment More references have been added testifying to the notability of Denis Alexander, but, unfortunately, not the journal. --Crusio (talk) 02:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per well-explained nomination. (I'd add that Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals) is a proposal, not policy, although it forms a helpful guide. Article still does not meet WP:N though.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that at the current RfC for that proposal the only criticisms voiced state that this proposal is not strict enough... --Crusio (talk) 02:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not saying it's a bad proposal (it's a pretty good one)), just that it's not a consensus policy capable of being met or not met. :-) - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The journal has a significant history, going back to the journal that was merged into it, and is cited with sufficient frequency by other reliable sources.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The above seems to be an attempt to show that the article meets criterion 3 of Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals). It should be noted, however, that this criterion talks about a significant history, not a long history. None of the references added to the journal indicated anything significant about the (admittedly long) history if this journal. The other "references" added are either to articles that appeared in this journal or to articles that appeared elsewhere but were written by someone connected to this journal. None of this contributes an inch to notability or does even belong in this article. The only reasonable addition is the one added by DGG (see below). --Crusio (talk) 11:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Important in its niche. It is included in all the standard religion indexes--I gave the RS for that--, and distributed by one of the principal aggregators. I consider the indexing to be proof of importance from independent sources. It is fairly widely held for journals of this sort. Alternatively, merge with the article for the publishing society. DGG ( talk ) 03:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This information seems to satisfy criterion 1 of Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals). Given, however, that apparently there is hardly anything that can be said about this journal, I think a merge to the article for the publishing society would be most appropriate. (I have no access to Ulrich's, so I could not check this before bringing this article to AfD). --Crusio (talk) 11:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable, though minor. No reason to delete. Redddogg (talk) 04:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no indication that it is "notably influential in the world of ideas". This is a good example of why indexing is insufficient to demonstrate notability. There appears to be no coverage beyond that & mentions by related parties -- i.e. no WP:SECONDARY third party coverage to speak of. Whilst the Victoria Institute was once influential, I see no indication that it has been so for nearly a century (no third party coverage in its article after 1927), or that Journal of the Transaction of The Victoria Institute (which does not even garner a mention on VI's article) ever had an impact (even if such an impact confers notability to the merged-to journal, which is highly questionable). "Notable, though minor" would appear to be oxymoronic -- notability requires some indication that the journal is non-minor. A merge to Christians in Science would be acceptable, but only if the indexing-cruft is eliminated. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 04:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominated. Crafty (talk) 08:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as a journal that is occasionally mentioned in secondary sources. But get rid of all the fluff describing who indexes it and how many libraries hold it - that is just PR garbage. And resist all attempts to sex it up by mentioning how many distinguished professors are on the editorial board. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 08:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is probably the leading journal worldwide it its very important field. It is very relevant that there are many world-class scientists on its editorial board. And given that the notability is being questioned the information about distribution and indexing is relevant (and not at all PR guff, it must have taken some digging, CiS does not do PR) NBeale (talk) 09:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Editorial Board contains 6 FRSs, 2 FBAs and one member of the NAS. IMHO this is useful information for users, but when I put it in the article others revert it. It certainly seems relevant for notability. NBeale (talk) 09:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't. See WP:NOTINHERITED. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 09:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 13: / Line 13: @@
 ::*Not saying it's a bad proposal (it's a pretty good one)), just that it's not a consensus policy capable of being met or not met. :-)  - [[User:DustFormsWords|DustFormsWords]] ([[User talk:DustFormsWords|talk]]) 06:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 *'''Keep.'''  The journal has a significant history, going back to the journal that was merged into it, and is cited with sufficient frequency by other reliable sources.--[[User:Epeefleche|Epeefleche]] ([[User talk:Epeefleche|talk]]) 03:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
+:*'''Comment''' The above seems to be an attempt to show that the article meets criterion 3 of [[Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals)]]. It should be noted, however, that this criterion talks about a ''significant history'', not a ''long history''. None of the references added to the journal indicated anything significant about the (admittedly long) history if this journal. The other "references" added are either to articles that appeared in this journal or to articles that appeared elsewhere but were written by someone connected to this journal. None of this contributes an inch to notability or does even belong in this article. The only reasonable addition is the one added by DGG (see below). --[[User:Crusio|Crusio]] ([[User talk:Crusio|talk]]) 11:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 *'''Keep'''  Important in its niche. It is included in all the standard religion indexes--I gave the RS for that--, and distributed by one of the principal aggregators. I consider the indexing to be proof of importance from independent sources. It is fairly  widely held for journals of this sort. Alternatively, merge with the article for the publishing society.   '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 03:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
+:*This information seems to satisfy criterion 1 of [[Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals)]]. Given, however, that apparently there is hardly anything that can be said about this journal, I think a '''merge''' to the article for the publishing society would be most appropriate. (I have no access to Ulrich's, so I could not check this before bringing this article to AfD). --[[User:Crusio|Crusio]] ([[User talk:Crusio|talk]]) 11:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 *'''Keep''' Notable, though minor. No reason to delete. [[User:Redddogg|Redddogg]] ([[User talk:Redddogg|talk]]) 04:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 *'''Delete:''' no indication that it is "notably influential in the world of ideas". This is a good example of why indexing is insufficient to demonstrate notability. There appears to be no coverage beyond that & mentions by related parties -- i.e. no [[WP:SECONDARY]] third party coverage to speak of. Whilst the [[Victoria Institute]] was once influential, I see no indication that it has been so for nearly a century (no third party coverage in its article after 1927), or that ''Journal of the Transaction of The Victoria Institute'' (which does not even garner a mention on VI's article) ever had an impact (even if such an impact confers notability to the merged-to journal, which is highly questionable). "Notable, though minor" would appear to be oxymoronic -- notability requires some indication that the journal is non-minor. A merge to [[Christians in Science]] would be acceptable, but ''only if'' the indexing-cruft is eliminated. <font face="Antiqua, serif">''[[User:Hrafn|Hrafn]]<sup>[[User talk:Hrafn|Talk]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Hrafn|Stalk]]</sub><sup>''('''[[M:Precisionism|P]]''')</sup></font> 04:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)