Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journal of Unsolved Questions

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. Although I disagree with most of the comments made here, it's clear that this is going nowhere, so given the unanimous "keep" !votes, I am withdrawing this nomination. Randykitty (talk) 07:09, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Unsolved Questions

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

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

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources discussing this journal in-depth. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG". Article dePRODded by article creator after adding 2 references (for a total of 5 plus 2 "further reading"). References are either not independent or just in-passing mentions. PROD reason still stands, hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 13:03, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:19, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes GNG on the basis of the references found here. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:26, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And which one of those is both independent and an in-depth discussion of the journal (as opposed to an article from the journal)? --Randykitty (talk) 13:35, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject passes GNG and satisfies WP:NJournals#C3: It is historically important in its subject area, publishing null results. It has been named and described in articles in journals independent of the subject and other media which highlight the subject's importance. Being indexed in any database is not obligatory. --Fippe (talk) 13:40, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I gingerly suggest that it is basically impossible for aa 10-year-old journal to be "historically important"... --Randykitty (talk) 13:50, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I gingerly suggest that users read WP:NJournals if they are going to use it as an reason to delete an article: "Journal age is not a consideration here. While there is a correlation between age and notability, simply having published academic works for a long period of time is not considered sufficient to satisfy C3. The reverse is also true, a recently established journal is not necessarily disqualified by this." --Fippe (talk) 14:16, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Historical purpose" refers to a history. A 10-year-old journal has hardly any history. Being the first to cover a certain subject is not a "historical purpose". Having published, say, Einstein's special relativity theory, that's an historical purpose. --Randykitty (talk) 15:04, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is important that negative or null results are reported, but they are rarely reported in other journals.--Bduke (talk) 00:19, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article, Environmental Science & Technology Letters was first created only 4 years after the journal started but all journals published by the American Chemical Society (ACS) would I think be seen as notable from the first issue. I found it on the second ACS journal (there are very many) that I looked at. I agree with Fippe .--Bduke (talk) 01:27, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bduke, from an experienced editor like you I'd expect better arguments than WP:ITSIMPORTANT and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS... --Randykitty (talk) 07:08, 9 October 2021 (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.