Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Physics Essays (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 keep‎. I see a clear consensus among editors in this discussion to Keep this articles despite problems that might currently exist in the article. Hopefully, they can be improved through editing. If you feel strongly that this article should be deleted, please wait a decent period of time before renominating or the AFD might be procedurally closed. Liz Read! Talk! 23:30, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Physics Essays[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Physics Essays (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am renominating based on the consensus at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Physics_Essays. Ca talk to me! 14:45, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Ca talk to me! 14:45, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, again, passes WP:NJOURNALS, and we now have independent sources describing the journal as not reliable ([1]), so we too can describe it as such. This is a journal with 30+ years of history, with a foreword by Gerhard Herzberg on its first issue, at one point edited Gerardus 't Hooft. That it's shit does not make it not-notable. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:53, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And here you are as always pretending that WP:NJOURNALS is an actual guideline. Note to AfD closer: NJOURNALS is just an essay written by Headbomb himself. It is not supported by consensus, and therefore passing NJOURNALS is not a valid reason for keeping an article. Tercer (talk) 15:08, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I'm here pretending it's what I think. I couldn't give a rat's ass about it's official status. And while I'm a major contributor to that essay, I'm certainly not its sole author, nor sole endorser of it. Literally hundreds of people in hundreds of deletion discussions (and countless PRODs) have agreed with its guidance. Yes, some disagree with it. I couldn't care less. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:12, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If there were actually hundreds of people supporting NJOURNALS there would have been no difficulty in turning it into an actual guideline. Yet, it was attempted, and it failed. Tercer (talk) 15:33, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It was attempted in 2009, but the closing statement from @SilkTork says that "as there is a general feeling that this proposal is helpful, it would be inappropriate to mark this as a failed proposal", so I'm not sure that it's fair to say it failed. (Also, that was nearly 14 years, and editors' views might have changed since then.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:23, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Instead of speculating, one could easily find out by attempting again. Which won't happen, because the proposal will certainly fail again, for the same reason it failed the first time. Tercer (talk) 15:32, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Instead of (baselessly) speculating the proposal will certainly fail, one could easily find out by attempting again. Frank Anchor 16:41, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Since I don't want it to succeed, it would be a bad faith proposal from me. It must be proposed by its proponents. Less talking, more doing please. Tercer (talk) 16:53, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to be placing onus where it is not due. Isn't it you who wants it proposed, so that you can try to argue against it? —Quondum 17:23, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And now the third editor in a row shows up to annoy me with idle talk. I don't want it proposed, I was just challenging Headbomb's ludicrous assertion that hundreds of people support NJOURNALS. The onus is on him. Tercer (talk) 18:41, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Headbomb has shown that literally hundreds of people support NJOURNALS via participation in years-long AfD discussions, spanning at least ten years. There it is in black and white (or whatever font color one is using). ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:19, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And now the fourth editor shows up to repeat the same bullshit. We still have zero proposing it as a guideline, which is how support is actually measured. Tercer (talk) 06:09, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pinging past participants @XOR'easter, Snow Rise, Oaktree b, Randykitty, MICHAEL 942006, Sal2100, and Bduke:. The others were Ca, who nominated, and myself, which don't need pinging. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:55, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, sorry to say, zero proposing this as a guideline really means nothing. I think the point is we have been shown a fact by Headbomb which indicates much support, which fits with the reality of the situation. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 16:31, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I already understood the first time, there's no need to repeat five times that you will not propose it is a guideline as you know it will fail again. Tercer (talk) 18:39, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, was perhaps more "famous" in the past. Scopus shows importance. Oaktree b (talk) 15:19, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Scopus is a database with 34,346 journals. Do you seriously believe every single one of them is notable? Should we have 34,346 stubs in Wikipedia consisting of nothing but the scarce information Scopus provides about its entries? Tercer (talk) 15:26, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why would that be a problem? —David Eppstein (talk) 17:43, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It also grossly exaggerates the number when multiple sections often get covered in the same articles (e.g. Acta Crystallographica A, Acta Crystallographica B, Acta Crystallographica C, Acta Crystallographica D, Acta Crystallographica E, Acta Crystallographica F = Acta Crystallographica), etc. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:12, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very sensible way to organise information. One wouldn't want to have a ton of nearly identical eternal stubs. One could take it one step further and not only merge together Journal of Physics A, Journal of Physics B, Journal of Physics G, etc., but also merge them together with the article on their publisher IOP Publishing. What little information we have about them can be conveniently displayed there as a table. And unlike the individual journals, IOP Publishing is actually notable. Tercer (talk) 19:44, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because it would be lame and against Wikipedia policy. Thankfully nobody took NJOURNALS seriously and actually created these tens of thousands of stubs. Tercer (talk) 20:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Out of all the journals on the planet? It confers some sort of notability. Oaktree b (talk) 18:52, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't. WP:GNG is very clear that a mention in a gigantic database doesn't imply notability, you need to have significant coverage. Tercer (talk) 19:30, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop pushing falsehoods. GNG mentions databases once. That mention is very clear that database coverage may need to be examined to determine whether or not it confers notability, a very different thing from stating that it automatically does not. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:55, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now you're just insulting me. The actual quote from WP:GNG is Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources. Unlike your selective misquotation, it's being negative about databases, not ambivalent. Together with an actual quote from WP:SIGCOV: "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, it's clear that one entry in a gigantic database doesn't count. Tercer (talk) 21:09, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your reading comprehension insults itself. Did you see that word "may"? May not support notability when examined. If it were intended to mean that it cannot support notability and would not need examining to make that determination, it would have been worded differently.
Anyway, "database" just means a large repository of data, organized in a structured way. Google books is a database, one that happens to contain full-text content of many books. Most newspapers organize their content in databases. Doing so does not magically invalidate the contents of those sources. One has to examine the source to determine the reliability, depth, and independence in each case rather than using blanket rules. Exactly as our guideline says. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:13, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now you're intentionally misunderstanding what I just wrote. There's no point in continuing a conversation under these circumstances. Tercer (talk) 21:29, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hard fail of WP:GNG. After the last AfD there was a great effort in finding sources about this journal. The best they could find was a passing mention dismissing it. WP:SIGCOV is clear that much more is needed. Furthermore, that source is itself published in a completely unknown journal, that I couldn't find in either SCIE and Scopus. I suspect the only reason they found it reliable is because it's saying what they want to hear. Tercer (talk) 15:23, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I tend to think that indexing alone is not quite sufficient, but here we have a published evaluative opinion, more than we get for most good journals. There is also some in-depth coverage at [2] which (as published in the same journal) is not independent and maybe dubiously reliable, but still could be quoted to explain the motivation for founding the journal. Unfortunately I do not seem to have subscription access to that source; maybe someone else does. Beyond the sourcing, this article serves an encyclopedic purpose in explaining why publications in this journal are WP:FRINGE and cannot be relied on. (The quote I have in mind from the link above would emphasize the same point, and suggests that it was fringe as a founding principle rather than once being good and degenerating to fringe.) A lot of the animus against this journal, apparent from its repeated nomination despite strong support in the previous AfD, appears to stem from its fringe status, but that is the wrong reaction. When something is fringe science, but prominent as fringe science, we should explain its fringe nature rather than casting it from us as an abomination. Fringe topics that have no properly neutral mainstream source to warn us of their fringe nature may need deletion regardless of notability because we cannot cover them in a properly neutral way, but that exception does not arise here. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:17, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't count me as having this animus. The problem I have with this article is the absence of sources. I have no problem with articles about fringe journals that have sources, such as Progress in Physics. Tercer (talk) 19:28, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What a bizarre choice of example. Our current article on Progress in Physics has no non-database sources, and no mainstream sources that attest to its fringe nature, unlike this one. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:59, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I had this source in mind, that for some strange reason is in the external links section. Yes, it's just some professor complaining about a paper in the journal to its editor, but Physics Essays doesn't clear even this extremely low bar. If you want another example take viXra then, the fringiest of the fringe. Tercer (talk) 20:53, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, largely per David Eppstein, who puts it very well. The fact that it is a fringey journal is not a reason to delete the page, but to write the page in such a manner that explains to our readers what this thing really is. The independent sourcing is marginal for our purposes (and thus, my "weak" opinion), but I think it is sufficient for having a page about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:12, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with Forbes72, just below, about the new sources, and that makes my "keep" a bit stronger. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:50, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I dug up a few more passing mentions in reliable sources (Physics Today/Nature/NYT), and a more lengthy treatment by a local newspaper. I think we've got enough for WP:GNG, though it definitely is not enough for a long article. 〈 Forbes72 | Talk 〉 23:45, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NJOURNALS is an essay and meeting it carries zero weight. The coverage that I found (linked somewhere above) is a single sentence. That is not nearly enough to contribute to GNG. Coverage by the journal itself is obviously not independent and counts for zilch as well. The only other material we have on this topic is the fact that it at one point successfully applied to be indexed by Scopus and thus received the autogenerated metrics Scopus produces for every journal in its database. That is decidedly not secondary independent SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 00:14, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll note that I am assessing the new sources the same way I assess any topic for GNG-meeting coverage, although NCORP is clearly what the standard should be as journals are businesses.
    Ref #2 (Nature "Page charges") is a primary letter to the editor and so does not count towards GNG Red XN.
    Ref #3 (the obit in AIP for Ugo Fani) is by a Physics Essays editor: not independent, and is not significant anyway Red XN.
    Ref #4 (NYT obit) quotes a separate obit written by the same PE editor in PE but does not otherwise provide more than a passing mention of the journal Red XN.
    Ref #5 (Nature obit) is another passing mention Red XN.
    Refs #6–9 (AIP matters, price lists) are a primary, non-independent announcement about a partnership between AIP and PE; and primary, non-independent pricing lists Red XN.
    Ref #10 (Pocono) is a credulous local-news human interest story about a podiatrist's FRINGE challenge to the fine structure constant (or something). It reports only what the podiatrist said about the journal, which is not independent coverage Red XN.
    Ref #11 (CAS source index) leads to a blank page, but would be primary database metrics anyway Red XN.
    Ref #12 (MIAR) is pure non-independent primary database metrics Red XN.
    Ref #13 (Clarivate) is just a link to the Web of Science search page but would not contain secondary independent SIGCOV anyway Red XN.
    Ref #14 (INSPIRE HEP) is a list of articles in PE Red XN.
    Ref #15 (Thomson Reuters) is a single-word announcement that Thomson Reuters has dropped PE Red XN.
    Ref #16 (Thomson Reuters 2013 JCR) just links to the wiki page on JCR, but would not contain secondary independent SIGCOV anyway Red XN.
    Ref #17–19 (Scopus, SCImago, 2021 JCR) are pure non-independent primary database metrics, a page that says SCImago for PE was discontinued, and the 2021 version of ref #16 Red XN.
    If we were to consider any of these items SIGCOV, the same standard would justify the creation of several million athletes, objects, foods, etc. that also appear in "selective" databases and receive "coverage" in the form of automatic primary database entry comparisons and proprietary metrics. JoelleJay (talk) 00:53, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My recommendation would be to redirect the page to some list of journals that have been described as fringe/unreliable/whatever, with a brief summary of its status. That way anyone searching for it will learn it is unreliable, but we won't be boosting its visibility or legitimacy by giving it the same treatment we give real journals. JoelleJay (talk) 00:59, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Re your last paragraph: We really need a corollary to WP:SOAPBOX, as an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. Just as we should not slant our coverage to promote non-notable topics that we think are deserving, we should also not slant our coverage to avoid promoting topics we think do not deserve promotion. Notability or non-notability should be the reason for an opinion here, not whether the subject is legitimated by having a Wikipedia article or whether we can performatively delegitimate it by deleting its article. (Also, surely if we did want to delegitimate it, the way to do so would be to have an article describing it as fringe and as having been delisted by the selective indexes, rather than just staying silent about it.) —David Eppstein (talk) 07:43, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe you could engage with my coverage analysis rather than soapboxing over one sentence? JoelleJay (talk) 01:41, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't respond to your coverage analysis because I didn't find anything problematic with it. It is the sort of analysis of depth of sources that should happen at AfDs. I disagree with your opinion on how much depth of coverage is necessary but there's nothing wrong with that kind of disagreement. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:52, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And not all sources need to be there for WP:N purposes. WP:V purposes is more than a fine reason to cite them. One aspect of that analysis that's wrong is that Scopus/JCR/MIAR/etc... are primary sources or non-independent. They aren't, they're secondary sources and are independent.
    Personally I don't care much about the Ugo Fani content. That belongs on the Fani article more than on Physics Essays article. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:55, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If the content from indexing services is secondary SIGCOV, then why does NJOURNALS only consider the "selective" ones to be SIGCOV? The selectivity has zero effect on the amount of coverage provided by the source. To quote David from another thread: using the selectivity of a source to evaluate the significance of a subject is the sort of thing you would do under a significance-based notability criterion, one that evaluates subjects based on what they have done rather than on their depth of coverage. [...] But that is not how GNG works. And if you can get secondary SIGCOV from automated numbers like CiteScore and appearing in lists sorted by such metrics, then why are the h-index, publication graphs, and other detailed metrics provided by Scopus for paper authors not SIGCOV? JoelleJay (talk) 18:53, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    why does NJOURNALS only consider the "selective" ones to be SIGCOV same reason why we consider NYT to be count over Bob the Nutball's Blog. DOAJ is a comprehensive listing of all open access journal, which aims to include all such journals, with a minimal filter of excluding the predatory ones. It's secondary, but not significant. JCR and Scopus, on the other hand, have a much higher bars to clear, and that's where the significance comes from. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:14, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Significance" refers to the depth of coverage provided by a source, not to the prestige of the source itself.
    Non-expert blogs are not counted at all due to being SPS, but even if you use a valid comparison like NYT vs Yakima Herald, the same article does not "contain more SIGCOV" when published in the former than it does in the latter! You seem to be confusing indicators of notability, which don't really count for anything outside PAGEDECIDE, with the actual establishment of a GNG pass through SIGCOV in IRS, which is essentially outlet-agnostic all else being the same.
    And again, why do the comparably-extensive Scopus metrics available for authors and papers not count whatsoever toward SIGCOV? If Scopus, with its haughty requirements of "publishing for 2+ years" and "having an editorial board that isn't all cranks" and "scope of more than regional interest" is so selective, shouldn't it be just as notable for an individual researcher to have a Scopus profile, since that shows they've received attention from (likely) multiple journals illustrious enough to be indexed there? JoelleJay (talk) 01:20, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. JoelleJay (talk) 01:19, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep i am repeating this to you to keep the article. i don't think that this article is bad but some weakness are there that's not a problem but the problem is if the article is deleted then some one will make it again and you will be arguing again and again MICHAEL 942006 (talk) 08:08, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: MICHAEL 942006 That is a truly remarkable reason to advance for keeping a page: "keep it because if we agree not keep it someone may defy consensus and re-create it." Presumably that argument can be applied to any deletion, so we should never delete anything. I don’t think you will find any support for that argument in any Wikipedia policy. As for "you will be arguing again and again", it is precisely to avoid that problem that we have criterion for speedy deletion G4. JBW (talk) 09:58, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
G4 only solves the "arguing again and again" problem when there is consensus to delete. As you can see with this very AfD, it doesn't solve the "arguing again and again" problem when there is no consensus to delete but some people feel strongly that there should be one. Perhaps there should be a WP:SK criterion for re-nominations after a keep that fail to advance any new rationale, but there does not appear to be one. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:59, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of organizations opposing mainstream science § Journals or Delete. One opinion and bunch of uncontextualized statistics is not significant coverage. JoelleJay's source analysis is quite compelling. The truth is that this journal fails WP:GNG. However, the current information is valuable, so I would not want to see it get deleted. I believe a merge would be the best choice. Ca talk to me! 12:35, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You cannot merge information into a list article; it is inherently an index, and is restricted to essentially a one-sentence description. Also, the other organizations seem to each have their own page, which supports this perspective. —Quondum 01:30, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, a merge requires some information to be lost. If List of fringe journals exists, I would have recommended a merge there. Ca talk to me! 10:32, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on prior indexing in Scopus (and notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY) along with coverage listed above is enough to pass WP:GNG. Frank Anchor 15:02, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Frank Anchor, indexing on Scopus is not a valid notability criterion. JoelleJay (talk) 01:38, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct, by the letter of policy, it is not explicitly a criterion for notability. However, WP:IAR is a policy and common sense dictates that the significant prior inclusion in a major citation database, along with the coverage listed that is at least borderline-GNG, shows that Wikipedia is better for having this article present. Frank Anchor 12:54, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Normally IAR does not fly as a keep rationale at AfDs. But maybe this balances out with the admission below that the speedy renomination after a previous keep was also based on IAR. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:01, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Normally IAR does not fly as a keep rationale at AfDs because voters tend to use it out of desperation for a lost cause. In this case, I brought up IAR to show there are cases in which the rules aren’t perfect and there are cases in which they need not be applied rigidly. Frank Anchor 19:49, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're going to argue IAR, that's fine. JoelleJay (talk) 18:29, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This discussion is clear evidence that this junk fringe journal is notable; the incredible nature of the content and lack of citations are not relevant to its notability. The article cites evidence of the journal's problems, making it valuable reading material for anyone looking up the journal by name. The content of the article causes no material, psychological, or physical harm. Deleting the article won't delete the journal; the world is not smarter just because we don't talk about dumb. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep First, on procedural grounds, rerunning an AfD only a week after the previous one closed is typically out of line. If there was some question about whether the closer evaluated the consensus properly, then this should have gone to DRV instead. Second, also on procedural grounds, the nominator has voiced support for a merge, indicating that this is the wrong venue after all. Third, the matter of whether or not WP:NJOURNALS is officially a "guideline" is pretty much beside the point. We delete articles on the basis of essays all the bloody time; ever !voted "delete per WP:TNT"? Or, for that matter, "keep per WP:HEY"? Linking to an essay is just saying, "I think this is good advice and applicable in the present circumstances." Maybe it's less of a rhetorical slam dunk than pointing to a document with a weightier consensus behind it, but I am far from convinced that the distinction matters here. All a "per WP:NJOURNALS" !vote does is to say, "Yes, in my opinion, the sources present count as 'significant' and adequately 'in-depth' (and rather than typing out myself all the reasons why, I will point to this page that I agree with)". Before the prior AfD, one could have made the argument that this journal having a Wikipedia article made it look more respectable than it is, but now we have a sourced statement calling it garbage and another calling it sleazy, so that concern no longer applies. XOR'easter (talk) 17:30, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've participated in a good 1000+ AfDs and almost none of them have been closed on the basis of meeting an essay criterion, and those that have have generally been swiftly overturned. Much like WP:TOOSOON, WP:TNT and WP:HEY are not !vote rationales, they are references to the actual guidelines that the !voters believe have been met. NJOURNALS operates on the assumption that primary, autogenerated catalogue data and metrics can ever count towards GNG, which isn't in line with any PAG. JoelleJay (talk) 01:37, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you think the close was erroneous, then a renomination is the incorrect procedure for addressing that. We have WP:DRV for that sort of thing. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:00, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason I nominated this article for deletion because I evaluated the consensus at the fringe theory noticeboard and deemed that a renom should be made. It is not my opinion. Rerunning an AfD only a week after is out of line, but I applied WP:IAR since I saw a consensus. Ca talk to me! 10:27, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article was indexed in Scopus until 2017 and also currently listed as ESCI on Web of Science. This article passes WP:NJournal. Nanosci (talk) 22:21, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nanosci, do you think NJOURNALS is a Wikipedia guideline? JoelleJay (talk) 01:22, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    NJOURNALS references at least one guideline - GNG, just like the other writings that you mentioned reference guidelines. And editors refer to essays during AfD and other discussions all the time - past and present. There is no way to tell if they explicilty mean the essay or the guidelines you say are referred to. Yet, they are accepted as an Ivote for keep or delete. It is indeed a rich history that we have here on Wikipedia. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:06, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A quote from the essay reads: Even if editors personally believe a journal is "important" or "inherently notable", journals are only accepted as notable if they have attracted notice in reliable sources. Yet no one have yet to provide GNG-meeting sources. Ca talk to me! 06:32, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You are obviously entitled to your view, which is what you seem to be stating. My view it has attracted GNG-meeting sources, as discussed above. And, discussions such as this are important to the process for determining the fate of the an article. And that is what is happening. Otherwise, AfDs would not be needed. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 17:06, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Plenty of notability essays allege that their criteria correspond to GNG, and they are still treated as invalid justifications at AfD because they are not real guidelines. I've participated in 1000+ AfDs, many of which contained editors saying "keep meets [NESSAY]", and those !votes are disregarded. NJOURNALS also does not state that meeting NJOURNALS meets GNG, it vaguely says something about the "spirit" of GNG. But even if it did, that would be false because the criteria in NJOURNALS are plainly separate from GNG. And if it was supposed to be merely a predictor of GNG, then users would need to actually show that GNG sourcing existed since the presumption is not based on a consensus guideline but rather on a niche essay.
    If you are arguing that the non-index sources above meet GNG, then that's another thing (which I believe is rebutted with my source analysis). But the majority of the editors here who are citing NJOURNALS are citing the fact that it was indexed by Scopus, not the "coverage" it has received by non-index sources. They are treating it as a de facto notability conferrer, which is not permitted by policy. JoelleJay (talk) 17:51, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"which is not permitted by policy" You seem to forget that WP:IAR is policy. Wikipedia is better for having this article than not. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:50, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem with editors using IAR as a one-off in exceptional circumstances. But that is not what most keep editors are arguing; they are arguing that NJOURNALS confers notability, which it does not, and/or that the metrics from "selective" indices constitute IRS SIGCOV, which they do not. IAR also doesn't override NPOV, which is inevitably violated in articles that can only be sourced to themselves and trivial primary sources, so it's not an option to IAR NJOURNALS into a real guideline against/without consensus. JoelleJay (talk) 02:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to say, but the above comment is a misrepresentation. Putting aside IAR - NJOURNALS has a history of conferring notability for academic journal articles based on selective indices whether or not there are metrics involved. Hence, journal articles are not sourced only to themselves and only trivial primary sources. The indices have historically been considered secondary independent sourcing, and are still considered as such. NJOURNALS has been applied as a guidance and it does have consensus as shown by Headbomb above. NJOURNALS also has consensus that is demonstrated by WikiProject Academics membership (participants)[3], and the 60 or so new articles listed on that page [4]. So, please stop misrepresenting the facts. It is not a consensus that you want, but it is the consensus that exists. In the end, NPOV is not violated by this process. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:43, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is simply not true. The only way to measure consensus it's to actually argue about the subject. Luckily we don't need to make shit up, there is right now a passionate discussion in the talk page of NJOURNALS, with several editors supporting it and several editors opposing it. This is not what a consensus looks like. Tercer (talk) 07:12, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the happenings over at that page is some sort of consensus discussion. And, based on the definition you have provided, NJOURNALS was argued about in deletion and other discussions during its illustrious 10+ year history. In any case, the support is not based on thin air. It is based on brass tacks participation on the ground. --Steve Quinn (talk) 19:05, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NJOURNALS is not a guideline, full stop. Its usage at AfD reflects LOCALCON, not global consensus. Guidelines can only be established through high level RfC consensus from the entire community. Headbomb's AfD search results include all mentions of "NJOURNALS"; a brief scan suggests most of the time it is invoked alongside real guidelines like NORG and GNG, and the subject kept/deleted due to meeting/not meeting GNG. E.g. The result was delete. The main guideline-based argument given for deletion was failing the general notability guideline (GNG) due to lack of substantial, in-depth coverage of the subject. Notability of journals (NJOURNAL), however, is neither a guideline or policy.[5] The majority of these AfDs also appear to have some subset of the same pro-NJOURNAL participants ± confused editors who think NJOURNALS actually is a guideline and thus feel "compelled" to !vote keep,[6] which suggests a WALLEDGARDEN more than a broad consensus -- this is especially true in AfDs ending in keep based on meeting NJOURNAL.[7] Additionally, consensus can change, and more recent discussions have indicated that when editors outside of the academia wiki-niche participate there is considerably less acceptance of NJOURNALS as guidance. E.g. The result was delete. The "keep" opinions are weaker. They are based on the supposed academic importance of the journal as per WP:NJOURNAL, a page that has essay status - that is, it does not reflect Wikipedia community consensus. The "delete" opinions, on the other hand, stress the lack of reliable independent sources that cover this journal. This is a very strong (and unrebutted) argument, because it reflects WP:V, a core policy.[8]
The result was delete. Even if I found the point on passing WP:NJOURNAL was made out, which I don't, that is an essay and passing it does not show notability I am afraid.[9]
[10] JoelleJay (talk) 22:02, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, the process I described above is permitted by policy based on its 10+ year history. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:02, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I agree with Tryptofish, it's not the actual idea of the article that's bad, it could just be written a little better to present the information in a clearer manner, maybe add some more information if possible. SwashbucklingSalamander (talk) 01:26, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked as vandalism-only account Ca talk to me! 07:57, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have been following this discussion for a while since I was mentioned in the proposal. This article needs some improvement, but it should be kept. --Bduke (talk) 11:05, 17 July 2023 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Physics_Essays_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1165870689"