Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Columbia Undergraduate Science Journal

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 Delete ~ trialsanderrors 09:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Columbia Undergraduate Science Journal[edit]

Non-notable science journal - many universities produce journals of their own. Less than 500 GHits, mainly from Columbia University websites. Also hovering on the edge of copyvio and {{advertisement}}. Previously speedied by Gurch as csd-g12. riana_dzasta 07:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete extremely new, only one issue published, Spring 2006. So, it certainly hasn't achieved scholarly notability, which is quite unlikely to develop anyway for an undergraduate science journal. Derex 10:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and the article's overt advertising tone. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 14:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of verifiable sources to establish importance of this publication.-- danntm ^T _C 14:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, though only because it's new and hasn't yet achieved notability. Other undergraduate publications, such as Eureka (magazine), have made notable contributions in their fields, so this is not a worry. It's just that the intention of notability is not the same thing as notability itself. WMMartin 16:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no prejudice against recreation if it becomes notable. JoshuaZ 22:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Question about how such a journal could attain notability: If articles in it become notable (discussed in refereed scientific journals, discussed in New York Times and CNN? Does that make the journal encyclopedic, or only the writers of the article? If noted scientists publish in it does that confer notability? Issue 1 has an article co-authored by Herbert Terrace, well known at least in experimental psychology. I expect that the distinguished Columbia faculty will frequently be co-authors of papers in it, and that those will get cited by their peers if they say something significant. Edison 15:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If that occurs, the journal will have some notability. We will still need to have enough data about it from independent sources to satisfy WP:V (which I'm not convinced we have at this point). JoshuaZ 16:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply to Edison: My knowledge of scientific literature is, well, developing, but IMHO for a journal to be notable, it should have a higher impact than CUSJ. I searched Google Scholar and found one hit for CUSJ, a request from a student to publish a paper in the journal. As JoshuaZ says, I have no prejudice against recreation, should it become notable. For now, it's not. If the Columbia faculty publish their articles in the journal, and these articles are cited, then the journal obviously attains some notability. Perhaps the guidelines for this should be made clearer? Just a thought... 124.177.238.175 03:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC) riana_dzasta, logged out.[reply]
Delete with no prejudice against recreation if it becomes notable. The problem is verification and neutrality when there are too few sources without a conflict of interest (which is often shortened to "noteability"). WAS 4.250 18:28, 11 November 2006 (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.