Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Universe (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. MBisanz ^talk 23:50, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Universe (journal)[edit]

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

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded by article creator whoc claims notability because the journal has a Nobel laureate on its editorial board (WP:NOTINHERITED). That said laureate has published two articles in this journal is also irrelevant, as there are no independent sources discussing the importance of those articles for the journal. PROD reason still stands, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 17:12, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The ADS database returns you the number of reads, downloads and citations gained by the journal's articles so far. Altmetrics gives you a measure of the buzz around the Smoot's papers. By the way, Universe seems to me notable not only because of Smoot's inclusion in its Editorial Board, but also for the other members in it like Sergei Odintsov, Gron, and others. Redwheel (talk) 17:19, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, let us consider, say Physics Essays, which has its article in Wikipedia staying quiet. Do you really conclude that Physics Essays is more notable than Universe? Please, let me know. Thank you. Redwheel (talk) 17:34, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, does really Wikipedia keep a journal like Physics Essays and cancel a journal with a Nobel Laureate? If so, well, I am clearly in the wrong place. Redwheel (talk) 17:37, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Concerning board members, please read WP:NOTINHERITED. As for Smoot's articles, ADS indicates that one of them was cited once (by a non-peer reviewed paper). Altmetrics doesn't say much. Any publisher worth its mettle knows how to drive that up. Concerning other articles, please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --Randykitty (talk) 17:41, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, if one has not the competences to judge on such topics, she/he should avoid to deal with them. This seems just the case to me. Have you checked the reads, the downloads and the citations of all the articles in Universe? ADS allows to inspect also the journals. Could you, please, answer my question without hiding behind Wikipedia's bureacracy? Do you really want to keep Physics Essays and delete Universe? Have you the competeneces to judge the content, the quality and the standing of the Editorial Board, the authors and the articles in Physics Essays (it is just an example of a low-quality journal which had an Impact Factor) and in Universe? From your points, I do not think so, and I think it would be more honest if you could move to a topic you feel more comfortable with. Thank you. Redwheel (talk) 17:52, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whether you or I have any competence or not to judge the quality of the articles in any journal is absolutely immaterial, because our judgment has no bearing on whether this journal is notable. Using our own judgment would be original research, which is not allowed on WP. Instead, we use reliable sources independent of the subject to establish whether a subject is notable enough to be included here. Hope this explains (and please read the linked guidelines/essays/policies). --Randykitty (talk) 18:30, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the independent reliable sources allowing you to keep any other journal's articles in Wikipedia? I do not see them anywhere. Please, help me to discover them in, say, Astrophysics and Space Science, etc. etc. Not to say in Physics Essays.... Thank you. Redwheel (talk) 18:52, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As a resume: you ignore the coverage provided by Altmetrics just because it does not fit your decision; you ignore the coverage by ADS (reads, downloads, citations to journal's articles) just because it does not fit your decision; you declare that it is not important to have competences to judge the standing of an academic journal about its notability or not (!); you block a priori any discussion pertaining dozens of other articles in Wikipedia dealing with other journals based on exactly the same kind of information I provided here for Universe; you does not seem able to realize that it is somewhat comic keeping Physics Essays, which has not even an IF, and wanting to cancel Universe with a Nobel Laureate in its editorial board. Well, it is enough for me. I cannot waste my time in ″discussing″ with such kind of people like you. So, good bye. Please, you may delete my article at any moment. If this is Wikipedia, well it is much better to stay out of it. Cheers. Redwheel (talk) 19:15, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fantastic! Now, you have also tried to cancel the fact that Smoot is in the board of Universe by stating that it is a trivial membership! God is nothing with respect to you, sure! Redwheel (talk) 23:02, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 21:34, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please, comment on the issue at hand, not on other editors. Edits to other articles should be discussed at the talk pages of those articles, not here. If you feel that Physics Essays is not notable, take it to AfD, but regardless, that issue has no bearing on the discussion here (WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS). Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 08:00, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'delete per nom. Not yet, though may become suitable with time. -Roxy the dog™ bark 10:53, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now, though as Roxy the dog noted, it might be notable and deserve an article in the future. Think this is Wikipedia:TOOSOON. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:51, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:NJOURNALS; possibly WP:TOOSOON. Miniapolis 00:46, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As a new journal from a publisher whose reputability has been questioned in the past, I think we need to see clear evidence of notability (per WP:NJournals) rather than just accepting this as notable because it exists, because some famous people have allowed their names to be associated with it, or because some indiscriminate indexes have picked it up. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's not meeting wiki criteria for inclusion but, journal editorial team are notable. Physics Essays case is different, it has Scopus indexing. Jessie1979 (talk) 06:43, 29 October 2016 (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.