Talk:Virology Journal

Undue weight
Is is right or sensible that this article devotes more text to a single controversial paper (and only one paper) than the entire history of the journal? It seems like a coatrack, like someone really wanted to make an article called 2010 influenza article in Virology Journal controversy. Typical trivial "verifiable so we have to include it!" rubbish that stains Wikipedia. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:51, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Well this was rather entertaining. I would suggest renaming controversy to notable retraction or something similar and to reduce the section, only preserving the best sources.  If it's too short, the article could become a stub with a sentence or two about it.  It's not because of this article that I learned of it, but when doing some general reading about peer review and low quality journals elsewhere, so it probably has some level of notability...  — Paleo  Neonate  – 01:48, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Adding: currently the section explains in depth why the article made no sense, probably for effect, to amaze the reader about the fact that it was still accepted. The sources can do this already and a short summary could simply state that it was a poor paper that did not belong in a scientific journal, as later confirmed by the editor-in-chief when it was retracted.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 01:56, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: this article (Virology Journal) is ostensibly about a journal, not a single paper published in the journal. Thus, this Wikipedia article is still a rancid pile of feces. Maybe you don't see it that way, but believe me, it is. If the only notable aspect of this journal was a retracted article, than maybe the retracted article should have its own encyclopedia entry. --Animalparty! (talk)
 * The event itself seems notable, but not enough for a separate article. If it's the only reason this article exists, it should probably be nominated at AfD...  — Paleo  Neonate  – 05:22, 18 March 2022 (UTC)