Talk:Science and Christian Belief

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Academic Journals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Academic Journals 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.Academic JournalsWikipedia:WikiProject Academic JournalsTemplate:WikiProject Academic JournalsAcademic Journal articles
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article has been marked as needing an infobox.
See WikiProject Academic Journals' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

Christianity Unassessed

	Christianity portal 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.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Philosophy: Science / Religion Unassessed

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.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

???

This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophy of science
	Philosophy of religion

History of Science Unassessed

	History of science portal This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 4 November 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

Editorial Board

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 09:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance?

Could somebody tell me why the following is relevant:

The founding of the Victoria Institute, over a century before this journal was created.
Its number of Worldcat hits (even if any search result, let alone one dependent on what is entered for "Enter your location", is reliable).

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 04:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I addressed the first point w/an edit. You might reach out to the editor who remarked on and added the Worldcat hits on the second.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]