Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rejecta Mathematica

Rejecta Mathematica

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

Non-notable "journal" which (according to our article) only ever published two issues, and no longer exists. My initial feeling was, This looks interesting, followed by, Hmmm, The Economist and Ars Technica as sources; looks pretty solid.

But, looking at the cited articles closer, they were published on Jul 20th and 29th, 2009, which coincides with the first issue. My own searching found an item in MAA, also dated Jul 29th, 2009. I can't find any other WP:RS, and even the blog posts and such I've found, are mostly clustered around that date. I assume, then, that they're all in response to some press release, and thus not really independent coverage. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 18:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 18:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - This reminds me a little of Null result#Scientific journals for null results. I agree that the article is currently a bit promotional (failing NPOV). If there were more coverage of the article, this could be dealt with. But with such limited coverage, it is difficult to write a NPOV article sourced by RS. Also, while I don't think there is a SNG for journals, I don't think that this passes Wikipedia:TEXTBOOKS, or any similar SNGs and the GNG case is fairly weak as RoySmith points out. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:17, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a fine joke that there should be an attempt to reject this article. But it is not well founded as it is easy to find further coverage in works such as Ethics and Science; Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society; Readersourcing—a manifesto; Micro‐credits in scientific publishing; &c. Naturally, as the project didn't last long, the coverage is limited but notability does not expire and so we're good. See also Deletionpedia. Andrew D. (talk) 19:23, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]