Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rejuvenation Research

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. Several commentators below make reasoned arguments for notability and User:Abductive in particular provides sources to meet the concerns raised by the delete arguments. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rejuvenation Research

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

Not a notable journal. No third-party sources have discussed it as a notable journal save one which was to a relatively sensationalist (and vaguely tabloid-like) story in the oft-deprecated New Scientist. It has not received the requisite notice or reviews required by our various print-media notability guidelines. Please do not be fooled by the health news coverage of various outlets which routinely cherry-pick poor-quality research to announce "amazing new cures!" to their desperate audiences. Those sources do not establish the notability of the journal itself. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and al relevant criteria. Seems to be part of a PR campaign, by design or accident. Verbal chat 21:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE Fails WP:GNG and general publication standards. Majority of sources state nothing more than the journal exists or was just introduced. Considering that the journal seems to act as a mouthpiece for a single group as opposed to a wide scientific body or field of study and it's clearly creeping into Fringe Theory territory. Nefariousski (talk) 22:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Journal has had a name change, according to this book by Michael R. Rose. Abductive (reasoning) 23:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the journal is not a reliable source (like anything Aubrey de Grey writes), it is indeed notable. This is a significant journal of the anti-aging community, has a solid impact factor (although it's mostly due to self-citations), has a significant history, and has been around for quite a while, and is indexed by MEDLINE, Current Contents, Science Citation Index, Excerpta Medica, Scopus and CAB Abstracts. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 03:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you propose some sources for the article? Just being indexed is hardly noteworthy and certainly doesn't help us write an article. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Since when is being fringe a reason for deletion? And although their "citation policy" is deplorable, even without self-citations a significant impact factor is left. --Crusio (talk) 03:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Who said being fringe was the reason? ScienceApologist (talk) 15:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A highly notable journal, though perhaps not for all the right reasons. Notable, 1/for its anomalously high impact factor from self-citation 2/for its very high rate of self citation, the best example extant of a closed circle establishing itself by publishing a journal. 3/for its controversial material . Additionally, considering the use of it for sourcing various fringe articles, in practice we need something here to give the readers some chance of understanding. SA, if you want to expose dubious science for what it is, you should support keeping this journal. DGG ( talk ) 04:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I want sources that discuss this journal. Much of your commentary on this journal, while interesting, is essentially original research. When outside evaluators actually take notice, that's when an article should be written. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although DGG is wrong to use OR to claim the the self citation rate is a reason for notability, a simple Google Books Search reveals that Popular Science says RR is "somewhat fringy". Then there is this and this ("fringy"). Under the old name, Journal of Anti-Aging Medicine there's this, some severe criticism here, Michael R. Rose's book, in which he calls the journal "a heroic effort to jump start research on postponing or slowing human aging". In the Journal of Aging Studies, Courtney E. Mykytyn says, "The launching of the Journal of Anti-Aging Medicine in 1999 (renamed Rejuvenation Research in 2004) marked a purposeful claim to professionalization. Admittedly Rejuvenation Research is situated at the fringe of gerontology by taking the controversial stance that aging is ameliorable while demanding to be taken as serious science..." These are secondary sources from which an article may be constructed. Abductive (reasoning) 17:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We certainly do make our own investigations in discussing article content and in determining if something is notable. Cf the hundreds of discussions about reliable sources. If I were to put in a statement in the article to the effect of why i think the journal is notable, that would be OR. ` DGG ( talk ) 00:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Thanks for that work, Abductive; since editors often check the Wikipedia pages for journals when they're trying to figure out if it's a reliable source, I hope that this useful information gets added to the article before long. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:58, 13 February 2010 (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.