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. ✗plicit 14:37, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:GNG. Though WP:NJOURNALS may apply here, Though this article passes WP:NJOURNALS, I could not find any secondary sources which contains significant coverage about this journal. Other editors have raised concerns about this article's reliability on its talk page. NJOURNAL states that "It is possible for a journal to qualify for a stand-alone article according to this standard and yet not actually be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject." I believe this applies here. Catalk to me! 14:25, 26 June 2023 (UTC) Wording edited for clarity in 08:27, 2 July 2023 (UTC) [reply]
Keep By the WP:NJOURNALS rule of thumb, being indexed in Scopus is a decent indicator that a journal is article-worthy. Having been indexed in the past means that Physics Essays qualifies. The same goes for having had an impact factor in the past (prior to being included in the non-selective ESCI). I think the general gist of the notability is not temporary guideline applies here. Whether or not the journal is a reliable source (it isn't) is irrelevant to the question of whether we should have an article for it. Moreover, we do have things to say: the article covers the downgrading of the journal over time, which is important information. XOR'easter (talk) 17:13, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not arguing that Physics Essay does not meet NJOURNAL. I am arguing that it does not meet GNG. As it is stated in NJOURNAL , it does not override GNG. Your argument would be stronger by providing sources in accordance to GNG. Catalk to me! 00:53, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have very little interest in arguing the relationship of different all-caps shortcuts on some notional org chart of Wikipedian decision-making, and in fact, I think arguments are strongest when they make sense without referring to any opaque jargon. Instead, arguments are strongest when they are rooted directly in whether material is encyclopedic. We have something to say; we can back it up with sources that are worth trusting; and the topic is naturally separate from related subjects to an extent that a stand-alone page makes good organizational sense. XOR'easter (talk) 01:43, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this article's existence is a violation of Wikipedia's very wp:founding principles. Specifically, NPOV and "Wikipedia is a encyclopedia". Since there is zero significant and secondary source covering this topic, we cannot represent all significant viewpoints because there are none. This results in an uncritical article on an obviously fringe journal. Deletion is not cleanup does not apply because there is no room for improvement. Everything reliable piece of information have been said due to its lack of sources. SNG is not a arbitrary threshold; it is a test to see if an article on an subject can stand and could be improved to not violate policies. Notice how every SNG have a variation of "likely indicates that reliable and significant sourcing exists on this topic". Because of this, I believe your intrepretation of SNG is against concensus. Another issue is that this article is nothing more than a simple database listing. There is nothing more to say than this journal was listed at x and x. Wikipedia is a encylopedia, not a directory for all-things-journal. Catalk to me! 00:05, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Empirically, my interpretation of SNG is in line with consensus, judging from the other !votes on this page and the history of deletion debates about academic journals. A directory-of-all-things-journal would include all journals, not only those that are indexed in selective indices and have quantitative information available about their influence over time. XOR'easter (talk) 17:57, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NJOURNAL is a good rule of thumb. That's why it is followed so often. However, as said above, SNGs are just a suggestion. What trumps all is existence of good coverage. Being indexed in selective indices does not automatically generate reliable coverage. Simple "quantitative information" is not enough. Following Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. That is not significant coverage. This is not a novel concept; following the spirit of notability, interpretation that SNG trumps GNG is not in line with the intent behind notability as a whole. Additionally, essays should not trump established guidelines unless in rare circumstances, which I am not seeing here. Catalk to me! 11:15, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
XOR'easter, the distinction between the general notability guideline and a subject specific notability guideline is not some minor bureaucratic distinction: it's frankly notability 101, and critical to understanding what the burden for inclusion in the encyclopedia actually is. An SNG can only provide temporary presumption of notability for intermediate periods of retention: ultimately it is still an absolute requirement that a topic be subject to significant, independent coverage in reliable sources, and eventually the advocates for retention are meant to meet that burden. The existence of an SNP covering a general type of subject does not obviate that requirement, it only militates for giving a certain amount of time to allow GNG sources to develop and/or be found. If and when a significant amount of time has passed and this is not occurring, policy is unambiguous that the article should be deleted, not kept around indefinitely just because of a "rule of thumb" presumption (which Ca is quite correct, does not trump GNG). This is a procedural, policy-oriented space: it's not really sensible to try to hand-wave away the "all-caps shortcuts" without addressing the content of the arguments raised concerning what they actually say... Those are policies and guidelines--you know community consensus?. There, not a single cap any any link. ;) SnowRise let's rap 05:30, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per the page you refer to as "notability 101", A topic is presumed to merit an article if [...] It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right. "Notability 101" explicitly states that a subject-specific guideline can be an alternative to the general guideline. Both are ways to judge that a topic is presumed to merit an article. The sources already present in this article are independent and reliable. They represent the judgment of people whose job it is to evaluate journals that this journal is worth documenting. XOR'easter (talk) 18:05, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but that's a somewhat selective quoting of the policy and just not how the policy reads as a whole. For that matter, there have been a number of community discussions reaffirming the point that SNGs do not invalidate the need for WP:SIGCOV as the ultimate test that all articles must pass at some point in order for their subject to have been established as "notable". Some of these discussions in the last couple of years lad to an extensive pruning of the SNGs (including full deprecations of existing guidelines in some cases), specifically because they were starting to give an impression of an alternate route to notability than coverage in reliable sources, which the community never intended. I don't want to quote paragraphs at you here, but the most relevant portion of WP:N to understand this distinction are WP:NRV and WP:WHYN. I'll grant you that the current lead of the policy could be drafted better to make this distinction clear, but the fact is that the distinction itself is the subject of robust community consensus on the matter, and captured elsewhere in the policy. SnowRise let's rap 23:55, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First, WP:N is not policy. Second, I've been there for plenty of "community discussions" and recall circular debate, acrimony, and only the most narrow of "consensuses" obtained by the end. The changing of standards for porn stars and sports biographies doesn't amount to a trend; species and academic biographies have been unaffected, for example. Third, this journal does have coverage in reliable sources. If all we had to go on were the forum posts complaining about it and calling it a home for crackpots, I wouldn't have !voted to keep it. XOR'easter (talk) 14:34, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep covered (in the past) by JCR and Scopus and thus easily passes WP:NJOURNALS. That the journal is now shit does not mean it's a non-notable journal. Papers there routinely make the news because they make sensational (see nonsense) claims [1][2]. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:26, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Scopus indexing is a big deal. Journals change, this was more notable in the past. Still a keep for here. Oaktree b (talk) 18:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notability is not temporary. --Randykitty (talk) 06:48, 27 June 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.