Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apeiron (physics journal)


 * 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. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  09:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Apeiron (physics journal)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Moribund journal of unclear notability. No independent sources, not indexed in any selective database. Tagged for missing references for 2.5 years with no improvement forthcoming. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 23:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete A search for 'Apeiron physics -wikipedia' shows that the journal existed and was included in some lists of physics journals, but I could find no in-depth independent sources. WorldCat shows few hits. There is a claim that it is in Ulrich's global serials directory, but I don't know if this DB is selective. It doesn't appear to be indexed in any major science indexing service. Without in-depth independent sources or other successful routes to notability via WP:NJournals, this poetically named physics journal fails notability thresholds, which suggests that the article be deleted. --Mark viking (talk) 00:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Ulrich's is indeed not selective. --Randykitty (talk) 08:45, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

2. From WP:NJOURNALS: "This guideline is independent from the other subject-specific notability guidelines, such as WP:BIO, Notability (media), etc.: It is possible for a journal not to be notable under the provisions of this guideline but still to be notable in some other way, under one of the other subject-specific notability guidelines." - So WP:NJOURNALS is a straw man here. 3. From WP:GNG: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." - The problem here is that Apeiron as a topic also necessarily refers to an organisation of people and its contributors, which includes clearly notable physicists and astronomers such as Halton Arp, the late Mendel Sachs, Jean-Claude Pecker, and Jean-Pierre Vigier (former assistant to Louis de Broglie, and who would have been Einstein's assistant but was denied entry to the U.S.). User:Randykitty, who launched this Afd, removed a long-standing reference to Jean-Pierre Vigier at 07:25, 11 February 2013 - calling the move "some cleanup" - just three minutes before first nominating the article for deletion under WP:PROD. Silent Key (talk) 04:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep: 1. "Moribund" (adj. "At the point of death; In terminal decline; lacking vitality or vigor; dying"). That can't form grounds for deletion because it's unsupported by WP:OR and WP:VERIFY. The journal site just says it's "suspended indefinitely". Inactive journals can be revived - an example being the similar physics journal "Physics Essays".
 * Comment 1/ "Moribund journal" was intended only as a description, it is indeed not a reason to delete. Some journals that were disestablished long ago are still notable (notability is not temporary). For a journal that's been "suspended indefinitively", that seems an apt description. 2/ NJournals is kind of an extra way for journals to establish notability. If a journal doesn't meet it (as does this one), there can indeed be other ways to satisfy our guidelines. 3/ The cleanup edit referred to is this one. I did not remove any references, but I did remove an unsourced statement concerning Vigier. Even if that statement could be sourced, it does nothing to establish notability, which is not inherited. So in short, I don't see how your remarks constitute a valid argument to keep this journal. --Randykitty (talk) 08:54, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - Article lacks content and references. Subject lacks notability. - DVdm (talk) 14:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. No references or explication of the notability claim (says peeer reviewed journal, but nothing about what appeared in there for instance).  Can't see any important papers in evidence.TCO (talk) 06:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.