Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mathematics and mechanics of complex systems

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 delete. SNGs are essentially shorthand for material that should have sources. that's why they generally have some reference to articles need to meet the Gng in the. what we have here is a massive discussion about the abstruse points of an SNG when the article evidently does not meet the GNG. Spartaz Humbug! 11:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematics and mechanics of complex systems

[edit]
Mathematics and mechanics of complex systems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article was PRODded with reason "Non-notable new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." DePRODded by article creator after adding reference showing indexing by MathSciNet. However, this database strives to be comprehensive and is therefore not selective. PROD reason therefore still stands, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:05, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am the creator of the page, so I don't know whether I can vote. Anyway please note that MathSciNet is, as a matter of fact, selective. It strives to be comprehensive, but only about journals of a certain level, as shown in my opinion by two simple facts: i) not every mathematics journal is indexed in MathSciNet, and all major ones are ii) in all 2013 (the year in which Memocs was indexed) MathSciNet added just 16 journals to its database. JeromKJerom (talk) 18:46, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You may certainly comment here, but this is not a vote but a discussion. Feel free to make any points that are relevant, based in Wikipedia policy: see Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions for some guidance. Deltahedron (talk) 19:26, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And, I would like to point out that it appears to me that User:JeromKJerom's response means that they oppose deletion of this article. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 23:44, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I represent the publisher and I would like to make the case for the page to stay; among other distinctions MEMOCS is one of very few diamond open-access journals (diamond = no page charges) in math that publishes both online and in hard copy. But above all I'm puzzled by the remark that MEMOCS does not meet WP:NJournals. The guidelines there seem to regard listing on Web of Science or Scopus as sufficient, and any mathematician will tell you that they will take MathSciNet's ranking and selectivity over Web of Science's for journals in the field. Also WP:NJournals specifically mentions MathSciNet as a valuable resource in judging the notableness of a mathematics journal. It is true that Web of Science takes longer to list new journals, especially from small publishers, since they have a large bureaucracy; but all our other research journals are listed by Web of Science and I have no doubt that MEMOCS will too in the near future. (We've applied recently, as Scopus told us they wanted two years of continuous publication before they'd consider the application. MEMOCS is about to start its third year.) Codairem (talk) 01:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is certainly true that WP:NJournals specifically mentions MathSciNet. In fact for the last 4 years it has saud Coverage in PubMed alone is therefore not enough to fulfil the requirements of Criterion 1. The same applies to MathSciNet. This is not the same as "a valuable resource in judging the notableness of a mathematics journal". In fact it is the opposite. Deltahedron (talk) 21:58, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is also true that WP:NJournals mentions MathSciNet in #3 (Citation indexes) which, "in individual scientific fields, MathSciNet, Chemical Abstracts, and similar disciplinary indexes are also valuable resources, often specifically listing citation counts." To me, this satisfies criterion #2 of WP:NJournals. Therefore, this journal meets the requirements for inclusion according WP:NJOURNALS. Criterion #1 is not the only option. I surprised no one pointed this out. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 23:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As I linked to above, our "resident mathematics expert" stated that MathSciNet is not selectuive, but strives for comprehensiveness. Both WoS and Scopus will often include journals much earlier than after two years, but perhaps they only do that for major publishers. Scopus is not very selective any more, so not being included in that one is not a good sign. If the journal gets accepted in Scopus or WoS, we can restore the article, but at this point, this is simply too soon. --Randykitty (talk) 06:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on my esperience, I think that MathSciNet is actually quite selective, and the editorial board appears more than respectable to me. Moreover I think it is pointless to ask a very "young" journal to be extensively indexed. So: Maintain. Cesalpino (talk) 16:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
— Cesalpino (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Meaning that any young journal should get a free ride? And regarding the editorial board: notability is not inherited. Please base your !vote on policy, otherwise it will be ignored, I'm afraid. What you're saying is basically the point that I have been making: such a young journal cannot be expected to have established notability (in the WP sense) already. --Randykitty (talk) 16:54, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • NOTINHERITED is an essay, not a policy. WP:IAR, on the other hand, is certainly policy. Arguments based on IAR may be accorded less weight, and perhaps even minimal weight, but, unless they are obviously absurd, they should not be accorded zero weight. James500 (talk) 01:10, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now I'm confused. You wrote that both WoS and Scopus will often include journals much earlier than after two years. And WP:NJournals says listing in WoS or Scopus is sufficient to establish notability. These two, taken together, would seem to be in contradicton with the assertion that such a young journal cannot be expected to have established notability.
      — It seems to me that you're saying that while notability can't be inherited via the excellence of the Editorial Board, you're happy for it to be inherited by virtue of being owned by a large publisher with an established relationship with Thomson Reuters and Scopus that can speed up its indexing. (Notice that Scopus is owned by Elsevier, and however ethically correct their relationship may be, the fact remains that we were told we should only apply after two years of publication, whereas, as you say, other journals get indexed much earlier.)
      — Finally, I haven't seen anyone advocate that any young journal should get a free ride. The point is that any young journal good enough to be listed in MathSciNet (and also Zentralblatt MATH, in this case) has at least a good a claim to notability as being listed on Scopus. -- Codairem = Silvio Levy (talk) 02:30, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that journal is worth mentioning. It has a marked international character and has among its contributors authors long since present in en.wiki, so I vote in favour of keeping the page.

Btw, why was someone asking to motivate the vote? AFAIK the decision about the deletion of a page is just a simple voting process, and we can't ignore a vote just because someone doesn't like its (provided) motivation.

Canpacor (talk) 15:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will read it, thanks. Canpacor (talk) 16:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
— Canpacor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The policy of ZMATH is "zbMATH covers all available published and peer-reviewed articles" and "Provided that the suggested journal falls within the scope described above, our staff will contact the publisher for the arrangement of a suitable data delivery procedure". So they do not have a quality or notability threshold beyond being peer-reviewed and published. In particular this does not meet the criterion no.1 "The journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area."
The essay Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals) explicitly states that it does not override the Wikipedia:Verfiability policy for reliable third-party sources: "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Are there such sources for this article? Deltahedron (talk) 18:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are! That's exactly what MathSciNet and ZBMath are: reliable third-party sources. I quote from WP:NJournals: [criterion 1 for inclusion:] "The journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area. [...] The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the journal is included in the major indexing services in its field." Are you arguing that MathSciNet and Zentralblatt MATH are not the major indexing services in the field of mathematics? If so, what are they? Silvio Levy (talk) 18:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable third-party sources are required by WP:V to write a non-trivial article. It is is clear that MR and ZM do not take a position on whether this or any other journal is influential simply by including it. It may or may not be typical for other major indexing services to only include influential journals, I couldn't say. What I do say is that this is clearly not the case in mathematics. Deltahedron (talk) 18:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:V says no such thing. James500 (talk) 06:26, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Quite corrent, it is WP:N. Deltahedron (talk) 06:40, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I was right the first time: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Notability "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Deltahedron (talk) 20:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That quote cleary does not say that reliable sources must "write a non-trivial article" about the topic. James500 (talk) 23:15, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Additional: looking at Science Citation Index, for example, this is described as "covers more than 6,500 notable and significant journals[...] described as the world's leading journals of science and technology, because of a rigorous selection process" This is very different. Deltahedron (talk) 18:55, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Deltahedron, to start with your last point: for articles on academic journals, we usually take the info that the publisher provides to source uncontroversial stuff (like when the journal started, who is the editor-in-chief, etc). If a journal is listed by Thomson Reuters, we can also include an impact factor and such. As for the selectivity, I am not a specialist in mathematics, which is why I asked David Eppstein first about whether MathSciNet is selective. According to him, it is not. Zentralblatt MATH was added during the AfD, so I asked David about that one, too, and according to him the two are very similar. the policy that you cited above confirms this: important databases for mathematicians, absolutely, but not selective. So I still think that WP:NJournals is not met. And if that one isn't met, then GNG is most certainly not met... --Randykitty (talk) 18:32, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Randykitty, codairem (Silvio Levy) here. I suspect your last reply is to my 3-paragraph entry above, not to Deltahedron, and I suggest you move it (together with this reply) up there. As far as I can see, by asking Eppstein whether MathSciNet is selective, you're shifting the goalposts, because WP:NJournals says nothing about "selective". It says "The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the journal is included in the major indexing services in its field." If you don't believe me when I say MathSciNet and Zentralblatt MATH are the major indexing services in the field of mathematics, feel free to ask Eppstein. Silvio Levy (talk) 18:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, the question is not whether MR and ZM are major reviewing services in mathematics, no-one is disputing that. The issue is about the interpretation of the comment "The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the journal is included in the major indexing services in its field." in the essay WP:NJournals. Firstly, this is an essay, representing the opinion of a group of editors. It isn't a law to be followed down to the letter. Secondly, the word "typical" is significant here. It may well be typical that the amjor indexing services are selective: SCI certainly is. MR and ZB are not. See, for example, Caveat 1 "The criteria, in practice, vary greatly by field". I can understand that the journal publisher's director of publishing wants to make the strongest possible case for inclusion of one of his journals, but I would suggest you have made the points that need to be made and that further repetition is counter-productive. Deltahedron (talk) 19:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is (another) weak point in NJournals, but one that nobody else ever saw before... In these AfD discussions we usually determine whether the databases showing notability for a journal are selective, for rather obvious reasons. Google Scholar is rapidly becoming the most important search machine being used by researchers. However, they are basically not selective at all and will include any journal calling itself academic. Hence, being included in GS or any similarly nonselective database is no distinction at all and does not show notability. This needs to be changed in NJournals... --Randykitty (talk) 19:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is also true that WP:NJournals mentions MathSciNet in #3 (Citation indexes) which, "in individual scientific fields, MathSciNet, Chemical Abstracts, and similar disciplinary indexes are also valuable resources, often specifically listing citation counts." To me, this satisfies criterion #2 of WP:NJournals. Therefore, this journal meets the requirements for inclusion according WP:NJOURNALS. Criterion #1 is not the only option. I surprised no one pointed this out. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TOOSOON and WP:NJournals. Criterion 1 of NJournals (the one we are discussing) states "The journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area", so satisfying this criterion by virtue of being included in an index can only work if those journals are sufficiently selective, selective enough that they only take the influential journals. I don't think this is true of MathSciNet and Zentralblatt — they take essentially all journals in their topic area, so inclusion provides no information about whether the journal is influential. There is no other evidence of passing any of the NJournals criteria. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:04, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion Another possibility would be to Merge and redirect into Mathematical Sciences Publishers (its publisher). r.e.b. (talk) 23:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This journal is listed in MathSciNet and in Zentralblatt MATH. As far as I know these are reliable third party sources for the mathematics field, and as far as I know both are selective. We've already had this discussion, perhaps two years ago, with WikiProject Mathematics editors, when some were adding Mathematics academic journals to Wikipedia. I think trivializing these databases requires sources to back up that they are trivial. WOS is not the only selective database. Also, we go by what WP:NJOURNALS says more than stated opinions.
Personally, I would appreciate it if some editors would stop willy nilly deciding on their own that certain databases are no longer acceptable, when they are considered acceptable. For example, Scopus is acceptable, but maybe not to some editors's liking (WP:DONTLIKE). ---Steve Quinn (talk)
I quoted above the ZM satement from [1] which shows clearly that it is not selective about the journals it covers, beyond their being published and peer-reviewed: perhaps you missed it. This is not to say that it is trivial, merely that it is comprehensive rather than selective in its coverage. Deltahedron (talk) 06:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Additional: compare this quote with "Thomson Reuters is committed to providing comprehensive coverage of the world's most important and influential journals" [2]: you will see clearly that one is comprehensive and the other is selective. This is not a value judgement, indeed the value of MR and ZM to researchers lies partly in their comprehensiveness. Deltahedron (talk) 07:03, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment MathSciNet is equal to Thomson Reuters according to the previous discussions with the math people over at WikiProject Mathematics. I think the same is true for Zentralblatt MATH. In fact, Zentralblatt MATH only indexes 3500 journals [3] - that sounds very similar to the Thomson Reuter's Web of Science Platform. So, at only 3500 journals, I would say ZH is highly selective. OK - here - the Web of Science indexes 12,000 journals [4]. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:48, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And what proportion of all mathematics journals do you think "only" 3500 is? Deltahedron (talk) 06:59, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And WoS includes all types of academic journals, not just mathematics, from Astronomy to Zimbabwean literature studies. How many of those 12,000 journals it has will be mathematics, you think? There are 299 journals in the category "Mathematics", 250 in "Mathematics, Applied", and 96 in "Mathematics, Interdisciplinary Applications". Even if we assume (incorrectly) that no journal appears in more than 1 category, that's a far cry from the 3500 in Zentralblatt MATH or MathSciNet. Given what we learned about these latter two, they should be removed from NJournals (unless one would like to use them in a different way: not being included in either of these two is proof of not being notable...) --Randykitty (talk) 08:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (I'm not arguing to the main point anymore, but wish to dispel a misunderstanding.) ZB doesn't index 3500 math journals, or anywhere near it. What its front page says is that it has entries from 3500 journals. Most are not math journals per se; for instance, a tiny fraction of articles in the Proceeding of the NAS is math. ZB culls articles with significant math content from just about all good journals in the sciences and engineering, from "Phys. Rev. Letters" to "Sound and Vibration" -- if an article is important to mathematicians, it is potentially added to ZB. Also many of the journals are historical -- ZB incorporates the Jahrbuch fur Mathematik that was published starting in the 1800s. So comparing the 600 math journals of WoS with the the 3500 journals of ZB is apples and oranges. Silvio Levy (talk) 19:08, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But this merely supports the underlying point that ZM aims to be comprehensive: in other words, to index any journal that publishes peer-reviewed mathematics. The numbers are not important, it's the difference between being comprehensive and selective. ZM's decision to index a journal is not, as WP:NJOURNALS requires, indication that it is "considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area". Incidentally, I'm not persuaded by the introduction of the words "good" or "important". I don't see those in their policy statement zbMATH covers all available published and peer-reviewed articles [5]. Deltahedron (talk) 19:21, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, not at all. A Wikipedia:Redirect is just a page with a bit of code that automatically forwards to another page. If you replace the code with regular text again, then there is a perfectly normal article instead. Deltahedron (talk) 18:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the point is MathSciNet (about 2,000 journals) and Zentralblatt MATH are highly selective databases, just as any of the Web of Science platforms, such as Science Citation Index. Whether or not a service indexes a potpourri or mixed bag of disciplines doesn't matter. It only matters that the indexing service is selective and therefore qualifies as an independent reliable source. Hence, this includes MathSciNet, Zentralblatt MATH, Science Citation Index, Chemical Abstracts Service, and so on. Therefore, it seems to me that this journal is qualified for inclusion. Also, here is a list of the serials and journals indexed by MathSciNet [6]. ------ Steve Quinn (talk) 03:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide evidence for that assertion. Can you point to any statement by the publishers of MR or ZM that provides a selection criterion beyond a mathematics journal being published and peer-reviewed? That is not being "highly selective", quite the opposite, it is being comprehensive. Indeed claiming that that criterion is selective dilutes the meaning of the word to the point where it becomes useless for the current discussion. MR and ZM indexing a journal is evidence that it exists and is peer-reviewed. That is very far from saying that it "influential in its subject area". Can you point to any assessment in a reliable third-party source that msays that inclusion in MR or ZB makes a journal influential? I think not, but feel free to do so, if you can. I have already provided a clear statement from ZM that the opposite of what you claim is true. Deltahedron (talk) 06:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. WP:NJOURNALS#C1 says "The journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area." I don't think that merely indexing in MathSciNet or Zentralblatt is sufficient. These services aim to be comprehensive, without any regard for the impact that the journal has in mathematics. The subject of the article might be notable for other reasons, but the case for C1, if it is to be based entirely on indices, seems very weak. Sławomir Biały (talk) 10:59, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I looked at the journal website and at one of the articles, and they convey the impression that this is a quality journal; but Wikipedia requires independent sources to establish notability, and the journal is still young enough that it doesn't seem to have those – yet. (MathSciNet and Zentralblatt are no evidence of notability.) I will have no prejudice against recreating the article when there is some evidence that the journal is notable. Based on Silvio Levy's statements above, I expect that to happen soon (say, within the next year or two). Ozob (talk) 14:06, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the word "comprehensive" in this instance is being misunderstood. "Comprehensive" means comprehensive coverage of a limited number of journals. Both MR and ZH limit the number of journals they cover; there is a cutoff - this means they are selective. So, no they are not quite the opposite in meaning. Also, User:JeromKJerom in the first statement has explained how Mathematical Reviews works - "please note that MathSciNet is, as a matter of fact, selective. It strives to be comprehensive, but only about journals of a certain level, as shown in my opinion by two simple facts: i) not every mathematics journal is indexed in MathSciNet, and all major ones are ii) in all 2013 (the year in which Memocs was indexed) MathSciNet added just 16 journals to its database".
User Codairem, stated above "and any mathematician will tell you that they will take MathSciNet's ranking and selectivity over Web of Science's for journals in the field. Also WP:NJournals specifically mentions MathSciNet as a valuable resource in judging the notableness of a mathematics journal".
The same think came up in discussions about MR and ZB. We encountered similar issues. Therefore, I say let's listen to the mathematicians, who know their field. And basing an entire argument on the word "comprehensive" is not he best argument. Here is why....
Although ZH "covers the entire field of mathematics" - this is not the same thing as covering every single published mathematics journal in existence, as has been explicitly stated or implied.
This actually means ZH covers a limited number of journals (about 2000) which also cover the entire field of mathematics [7].
Heck, one journal can cover the entire field of mathematics, or in other words, cover all the major disciplines in mathematics - and ZH is a reviewing service - so, yeah, they could certainly cover the entire field of mathematics.
There are Physics journals that cover all the major disciplines in Physics. I am sure there are Chemistry journals that cover all the major Chemistry disciplines. It all depends on the research papers the particular journal accepts or decides to include. So, comprehensive in this instance means, comprehensively covering all the disciplines in mathematics, but limiting the number of journals covered to 2000, or 3500, or whatever. And that means there is selection process. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:11, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The use of the word "comprehensive" in this instance reduces this argument to either / or which is incorrect. There is much more to this issue. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:38, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Both MR and ZH limit the number of journals they cover; there is a cutoff - this means they are selective." Please provide evidence for that assertion. Are you claiming there is a numerical limit? If so, what is it, what proportion of all mathematics journals does it constitute, and most importantly, where is there an authoritative statement, either from MR and ZM or a reliable independent source, of what it is? If you mean that there is a threshold of importance and influence that they apply, again please say what it is, what proportion of journals if admits and rejects, and again give the evidence. I have shown that that ZM publicly state their criterion is that a journal be published and peer-reviewed. That is minimal threshold, and it is simply useless for the current discussion to describe it as selective. We do not aspire to have an article on every one of the thousands of mathematics journalssimply because they exist. We have to be able to make a useful statement about them, based on published reliable sources, or at least have some reason to believe that the journal is important or influential in some way. Merely existing is not enough. Deltahedron (talk) 06:43, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the cutoff numbers for MR [8] about 1800, and for ZM [9]. Steve Quinn (talk) 01:17, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Mathematical Reviews is mentioned in the WP:NJOURNALS guideline because is it uses a citation database [10] and a Mathematical Citation Quotient, which is apparently similar to computing an impact factor, for a given journal. The Charleston Advisor [11] reviewed the two databases in an article entitled "Mathematics Sites Compared: Zentralblatt MATH Database and MathSciNet" [12].
Also, I apologize if I came across as terse earlier in this discussion. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:20, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here is an example of one single academic journal that comprehensively covers the field of mathematics - in other words it "publishes mainly research papers in in all fields of pure and applied mathematics" [13]. Also here is the recently created Wikipedia article that covers this journal (which covers the mathematical disciplines...) - Results in Mathematics. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:31, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What does this other article have to do with this discussion? Please see Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Deltahedron (talk) 06:46, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you say to listen to the mathematicians; I am a mathematician, and I am perfectly aware of how MathSciNet and Zentralblatt work. Yes, there are things they don't index, but they are so nearly comprehensive that anything they don't index is a preprint, very old, or irrelevant to professional mathematics. Wikipedia's standards are more stringent than theirs, and for good reason: Wikipedia is neither an abstracts service nor a list of journals. Wikipedia has a simple but strict notability guideline, coverage in reliable secondary sources. While that is not a difficult threshold for many topics and many journals, it intentionally excludes some fine and respectable professional publications which have not achieved wide recognition. MEMOCS currently appears to be such a journal. As I said above, I have no prejudice about including it once it has met Wikipedia's criterion for notability, and I'm also open to the possibility that my assessment of its lack of notability is wrong. But the only argument that anyone seems to be putting forward for its notability is its inclusion in MathSciNet and Zentralblatt, and that is simply not sufficient. Ozob (talk) 06:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It must be obvious from my contributions, listed at my user page, that I am too. I agree with this comment wholeheartedly. Deltahedron (talk) 06:44, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:Deltahedron I should have looked at your user page sooner. I am impressed with the mathematics articles that you have created. So, yes, I agree that you are an authentic mathematician. However, I don't understand why there are differing opinions among mathematicians pertaining to MR and ZM. In the discussion three years ago, some of us non-mathematicians were convinced via discussion that ZM and MR have standing that serves Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Also, the two mathematicians that helped to open this discussion differ with your opinion. So, it's around and around we go. I was hoping more mathematicians from WikiProject Mathematics would join in. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:18, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion is based on evidence and Wikipedia policy. The evidence is at Wikipedia talk:Notability (academic journals)#Evidence. So far you have produced no evidence for your assertions about MR and ZM in spite of repeated requests to do so. Deltahedron (talk) 06:40, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Questions Perhaps any journal publishers who happen to be reading might be in a position to answer the following questions. Roughly how many peer-reviewed mathematics research journals are there being published at present, and what proportion of them are indexed by Mathematical Reviews and Zentralblatt? What selection criteria do MR and ZM apply to journals before indexing them? In particular, do they require journal to be important and influential? Deltahedron (talk) 11:07, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selective merge and redirect to Mathematical Sciences Publishers. This looks like a solid, reputable journal. But it is just starting out and has not yet had time to general impact factors and has not yet made it into selective indices. This is probably a case of WP:TOOSOON. Nonetheless, basic facts about the journal are verifiable in reliable sources like MathSciNet and Zentralblatt, and per WP:PRESERVE, verifiable information should be preserved rather than deleted. Until the journal gains notability, a listing at Mathematical Sciences Publishers is appropriate. The journal title is a plausible search term, so a redirect is warranted as well. No prejudice to re-creation when multiple reliable sources or membership in selective indices become available. --Mark viking (talk) 03:59, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. NJournals is only an essay, so "fails NJournals" is not argument for deletion. GNG doesn't work in reverse, so "fails GNG" isn't an argument for deletion either. In order to satisfy N, the journal must be "worthy of notice", something that ultimately isn't defined. It is suggested that inclusion in a sufficiently selective database indicates that a journal is worthy of notice. It is also suggested that MathSciNet and ZMath are not selective. Taken literally, that cannot be right. The two databases are incredibly selective. They intentionally exclude the vast majority of published literature. They are a lot more selective than, for example, Google. What is obviously being suggested is that they are not sufficiently selective compared to some essentially arbitrary standard, some line in the sand, represented by indexes like Scopus. I do not agree with the proposed location of that line. I don't see why a journal that, to use the words of the preceding !voter, looks "solid" and "reputable" shouldn't have an article. James500 (talk) 07:06, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline" is number 6 on the list Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Reasons_for_deletion. Deltahedron (talk) 04:37, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: it is item 8 on that list. Deltahedron (talk) 20:06, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(1) NJournals isn't a notability guideline. (2) The deletion policy specifically refers to WP:N instead of WP:GNG. In my view that should be taken to refer to the whole of N including the introduction which appears to admit any topic that is "worthy of notice" within the ordinary meaning of that expression (which obviously can't be defined solely by reference to GNG and SNG). James500 (talk) 07:27, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Man, what a gem! You keep coming up with the most original interpretations of guidelines and policies that I've ever encountered on WP. Of course, the intro to WP:N says "A topic is presumed to merit an article if all of the following are true", one of them being that something verifiably meets WP:GNG or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline. Now you correctly state that NJournals is not a guideline but an essay. It was indeed designed to make it easier for academic journals to be judged notable. If we put it aside as not being a guideline, then we'll have to apply GNG in full force and rare is the journal that meets GNG, this one certainly not. If "does not meet GNG, hence keep" would be a valid argument, my cleaning lady, who verifiably exists, could have her bio included, too and we could do away with PROD and AfD. --Randykitty (talk) 15:09, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The argument that I am making is more along the lines that reputable peer reviewed journals included in MathSciNet and affiliated with a University are particularly significant, unusual, meritorious, interesting and so forth, compared to published literature as a whole which includes things like self published fiction, predatory journals and a lot of other junk. The analogy with your landlady is misleading. A closer analogy would be arguing that a big shot tycoon is objectively notable because he is rich and powerful and so forth. James500 (talk) 23:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N does not say in express words that a topic that fails GNG and all SNG is inherently non-notable, or even that it is presumed to be non-notable. It is not obvious that it is meant to be construed that way either. Hence "fails GNG" isn't obviously a valid argument for deletion. James500 (talk) 00:29, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is worth noting that User:James500 is of the opinion that all academic journals likely to appear as sources should have articles [14]. Unfortunately this opinion runs contrary to Wikipedia policy on verifiability, that "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." It is not surprising that maintaining that opinion when it runs quite counter to policy requires a certain degree of originality. However, I am sure that whoever closes the discussion will give this novel interpretation exactly the weight it deserves. Deltahedron (talk) 20:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I hold no such opinion. The words "so far as possible" were meant to exclude conflict with policy. I'm sorry that you didn't understand what I said. James500 (talk) 00:17, 2 September 2014 (UTC) I have re-worded that essay in a way that I hope will be impossible to misconstrue and moved it to WP:SOURCEART. I would be grateful if in future you refrain from presuming to know what my opinions are. James500 (talk) 03:42, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your precise words, the opening sentence of the diff I gave, are "Wikipedia needs, so far as is possible, an article on every substantial publication that is likely to be used as a source for Wikipedia". If that is not your opinion, I apologise. Deltahedron (talk) 06:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment I agree with User:Deltahedron in the related WP:NJOURNALS discussion when they open with a statement [15] that "Mathematical Reviews and Zentralblatt MATH ...cover about 1900 and 2300 journals respectively". Therefore, he himself has shown To me means that the number of journals covered is limited to 1900 and 2300 respectively.
Furthermore, the link and quote below means to me (and only me) that Zentralblatt MATH covers a limited number of journals:

"Zentralblatt MATH (zbMATH) is the world’s most comprehensive and longest running abstracting and reviewing service in pure and applied mathematics" ...[and so on] ... [and] reviews or abstracts [are] currently drawn from more than 3,000 journals and serials" [16].

I am also adding the following:
The way the MR covers papers appears to be comprehensive to each paper I agree with User:Deltahedron if he also stated that there is comprehensive coverage of each paper covered, and I don't see anything wrong with that. It seems similar to abstracting to me, which could be useful for indexing. Either way, this is a limited number of journals (1900, 2300, etc.), and a select number of journals. I think what is meant is that MR comprehensively covers the entire field of pure and applied mathematics, within a selected number of journals - which by the way - are important to mathematics.
For myslef, I saw the number 3500 somewhere, I'll try to find it - but the point is - these are a limited or select number of journals at either around 2100 or some other number.
Furthermore, the below evidence appears to show relevant selectivity [17]:

"[Since 1940] Mathematical Reviews...provid[es] timely information on articles, books and other published material that contain new contributions to mathematical research ... It is MR policy to cover articles and books in other disciplines that contain new mathematical results or give novel and interesting applications of known mathematics. Elementary articles or books, or articles that have not been refereed are ordinarily not listed [Also,] articles and books that are not in the published literature are not considered for coverage... MRDB entries for recent items in a selected list of journals..." [18]

Addtionally, the reviews in MR are "reviews written by a community of experts" [19] - this means the reviews are not written by history experts or literary authors - people who might not have expertise in mathematics.
Also, MR builds on previous literature with novel advancements[20] , but also if it lacks integrity according to MR standards then "If a journal currently indexed by Mathematical Reviews® does not adopt these best practice standards, coverage of that journal will cease and the editors of the journal will be informed. Coverage will be resumed only when the journal agrees to these basic standards of scholarship". [21].
Consequently, I am seeing more and more selectivity with MR, as I study this problem. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is not true that I have ever stated that MR or ZM has a numerical limit on the number of journals: I have never said that, I have in fact repeatedly stated the opposite, and there is no such numerical limit. SQ has been repatedly challenged to produce evidence, and so far the best he can do is to falsely attribute the statement to me. SQ either cannot understand plain English, or is deliberately mis-quoting me, or simply trolling. Deltahedron (talk) 21:04, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect what does the following statement mean:
"The premiere reviewing and indexing sources for mathematics are Mathematical Reviews and Zentralblatt MATH. These cover about 1900 and 2300 journals respectively, constituting a more-or-less comprehensive coverage of the peer-reviews literature." Here is the diff [22], and this is the text that is currently at the top of the section [23].
Apparently I am unable to discern what this means. I agree that the statement does not in any way literally say that MR or ZM "limits" or "selects" journals to the number of 1900 and 2300 respectively. What was written is "These cover about 1900 and 2300 journals respectively...". So, sincerely, what does this mean? --- Steve Quinn (talk) 22:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Steve, the number of journals that exist in the world is not infinite. So in that sense, there is an absolute limit on the number of journals. That is, there is an integer N such that Zentralblatt cannot index more than N journals. In fact, with , it is extremely unlikely that Zentralblatt will index N journals, just by virtue of the fact that there aren't enough electrons in the universe to set up the indexing. But this is, of course, not what Deltahedron and others contend. What they contend is that there is not some fixed number that is small (relative to the total number of mathematics journals) that Zentralblatt and MathSciNet limit themselves to. This does appear to be your contention, but you have not yet provided any clear evidence that there is such a fixed (small) number. In fact, you yourself have acknowledged that these services keep adding journals to their indexing services, which would seem to contradict the view that they are working with an absolute (small) maximum number. Moreover, this viewpoint is explicitly contradicted by quotations Deltahedron provided from both the MathSciNet and Zentralblatt websites. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:39, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment Here is a reference [24] that says coverage in MathSciNet is 1,799 journals. This is close to the number '1900' stated above. It is in fact the Mathematical Reviews article on Wikipedia that says '1900'.
In any case, this reference and the above reference indicate that there is a numerical limit on both MR and ZM. And from this I see" selectivity " for the above stated reasons; and because the number of journals covered in either case is very small and the quality of peer review very high, and the editorial staff and publishers for both are reputable and known for integrity WP:IAR. The publisher for MR is the American Mathematical Society [25].
Moreover, we see that Zentralblatt MATH is edited by the European Mathematical Society, FIZ Karlsruhe and the Heidelberg Academy of Sciences and then published by Springer-Verlag [26] --- WP:Use common sense--- Steve Quinn (talk) 00:54, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Steve Quinn has made a number of assertions here, some of them on several occasions, which I think are simply incorrect. There is certainly no evidence for them. I don't propose to extend the length of this discussion by refuting them every time he makes them. I simply ask the closer to bear in mind that these claims are at best unsubstantiated. Deltahedron (talk) 06:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I thought I did a pretty good job of supporting my argument. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:33, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment At the risk of making this discussion even longer than it already is, I would like to add a few remarks on Zentralblatt MATH (ZM) and Mathematical Reviews (MR). It seems to me that in the above discussion, some concepts are being mixed up and misinterpreted, namely "comprehensive" and "selective". Comprehensive means that a database tries to cover every aspect of its scope. Selective means that a database only includes certain sources that have passed some kind of review. These are two very different, and more importantly, independent things. For example, Google Scholar (GS) tries to cover all academic subjects from astronomy to humanities (so it is comprehensive in scope) and it tries to include everything ever published (so it is not selective in coverage). The Web of Science (WoS) also covers astronomy to humanities (so it is also comprehensive in scope), but is very selective about the journals that it includes and it does not include other publishing formats (so it is selective in coverage). Scopus is similar to WoS, but a bit less selective. ZM and MR are both much less comprehensive than either GS or WoS, because they only cover mathematics. However, within mathematics they are both comprehensive in scope and try to cover the whole field. If we now look at the link that Steve gave above for ZM and click on About Zentralblatt, we see this confirmed under "Subject coverage". Hence, for mathematics, it is comprehensive in scope. If we now look under "Publications coverage", we read: "Zentralblatt MATH covers all published and refereed articles, books, conferences as well as other publication formats (CD-ROM, DVD, Video-tapes, web-documents) belonging to the scope given above. Moreover, ZBMATH also partially covers theses (when received at the editorial office)." From this, it appears evident that they cover anything that they can lay their hands on. Hence, although being comprehensive in scope, they are not selective in coverage. To get back to the question of notability, it is clear that whether the scope of a database is comprehensive or not, is not relevant. What does matter, is whether its coverage is selective or not. If it is, then inclusion in such a database is a seal of approval by recognized experts, which contributes to notability. If it is not, then inclusion in such a database does not contribute to notability. From all the discussion above, it would seem to me that inclusion in ZM and MR means that this is nothing less than a peer-reviewed journal. But nothing more, either, because these databases are not selective in their coverage. --Randykitty (talk) 14:36, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Zentralblatt MATH is a database which covers the entire field of mathematics, and does so with a limited number of journals. Specifically, according to the above reference, it covers 3,000 journals. However according this reference [27] it covers 3500 journals (which is also above). This limited number indicates selective coverage because Zentralblatt MATH covers journals from other disciplines besides mathematics. For example, punch in the search term "physics" on this page: [28]. This produces about 120 physics or physics related journals. If "chemistry' is the search term then there's 17 chemistry journals (hmmm - a very small number); if "economics' is used as the search term then there is only 35 journals (h-m-m-m another small number); if "computing" then its 81; finally if "mathematics" is selected it is 616. Hence, these are selected journals, from various disciplines; these are not all just mathematics journals. And some of these can be found on Thomson Reuters Master Journal List, which may be irrelevant. In fact this page [29] ZM covers "all areas of pure and applied mathematics, as well as its applications, in particular to the natural sciences, computer science, economics and engineering. It also covers history and philosophy of mathematics and university education". Coverage within all the disciplines and area for only 3500 journals is a small, limited and select quantity. Therefore, this is very very different from only grabbing anything that they can lay their hands on. Instead it appears to be the silver on top of the dross, or the whipped cream on top of the pudding.
Also, the fact that this database might cover books, conference proceedings and other publication formats is not remarkable. The Web of Science covers books, journals, proceedings and patents, [30], [31]. Also, "Web of Science is the largest discovery platform with the most complete records in every subject" [32]. Also, it appear that Chemical Abstracts Service covers journals, technical reports, dissertations, conference proceedings, and new books, according to the Wikipedia article - I found a related reference here: [33].
I have already made the case for Mathematical Reviews throughout this discussion and I see no need to repeat that again.
I will however repeat - both databases comprehensively cover pure and applied mathematics, but each database does so with a limited number of journals, from a variety of disciplines. Each database is produced by reputable publishers and editorial staff, with high quality peer review. This shows that care, quality, control, discrimination and so on are part of the formula. This is in contradiction to saying they grab anything they can lay their hands on - which really seems like a an inaccurate description. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 07:54, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Steve, with all due respect, but 3000 is a huge number for the sole field of mathematics. Where do you get that this is just a "limited number"? Their own description seems to be quite clear that they include anything they can get and are not selective at all. That you get small numbers for fields other than mathematics is to be expected, there are not that many journals outside of mathematics that publish articles that are of interest to mathematicians. Also, nobody has ever claimed here that these two databases are anything else than high quality, so your argument about that is a straw man. WoS, for all fields of science (including such prolific fields as the life sciences), contains 12,000 journals, that's only 4 times as much then the 3000 journals that you are calling selective. Above, clear sources have been given for the fact that ZM and MR are not selective. Do you have any source for your claim that 3000 is a selective subset of all existing mathematics journals? Do you have any source where ZM and/or MR describe on what basis (other than being peer-reviewed) they select journals? --Randykitty (talk) 11:21, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Your argument using the "search" feature of Zentralblatt is totally wrong. What you have shown is that there are 616 journals in which the word "mathematics" appears in the title (or subtitle), not that there are only 616 mathematics journals. For example, none of the following high profile mathematics journals appear in your search results: Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis, Inventiones Mathematicae, Journal of Algebra, Journal of Differential Geometry, Journal of Functional Analysis, etc, and these were just the first ones I looked for! Also, I see no evidence anywhere that ZB limits the number of journals to 3500. They do certainly cover some number of journals, but they do not say that they have imposed this as a limit on the number of journals that they cover. It seems quite plausible to me that 3500 is actually close to the total number of existing mathematics journals. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:32, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 07:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? A relist? Seriously? Just close this as no consensus and let's move on. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 11:57, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"No consensus"? When the only "keep" arguments are based on the incorrect assumption that ZM and MR are selective? --Randykitty (talk) 12:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, a relist seems unnecessary. The discussion above is primarily semantic; it has essentially nothing to do with the article in question. I think consensus was for either deletion or a redirect to Mathematical Sciences Publishers. Ozob (talk) 14:13, 11 September 2014 (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/Mathematics_and_mechanics_of_complex_systems&oldid=1194627699"