Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Galilean Electrodynamics


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 00:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Galilean Electrodynamics

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is about a journal which is not indexed by the major scientific indexes, is essentially an outfit for self-promotion and advertising against-the-mainstream papers that have failed peer-review at other journals. While this in-and-of-itself is not a criteria for deletion, the self-promotional references are all we have going for this subject. There are absolutely zero independent, third-party sources who have commented on this journal which makes any article we would even attempt to write about this journal impossible to reliably source. Note that articles published in this journal are routinely rejected as reliable sources for nearly every other article in this encyclopedia.

See the inclusion criteria of WP:FRINGE for why this article should be deleted, which mentions as a requirement that the subject should be: "referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory." Note that there are notable fringe journals like the Journal of Scientific Exploration which satisfy this criteria and are therefore encyclopedic. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination, primarily notability concerns. Equendil Talk 22:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems to have been around for a while, with contributions by qualified authors. I see no evidence of self-promotion, and no evidence that it publishes papers that have failed peer review. The journal seems to have been mentioned in some 3rd party resources, such as, and the article does not appear to provide misleading positive information. --John294 (talk) 22:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * First one doesn't mention the journal, second and third are conference proceedings and, as such, are not reliable sources. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If we were using sources to claim Einstein had been disproved by an article in Galilean Electrodynamics, then you would be quite correct. However, we are using the sources to verify Galilean Electrodynamics' notability (unless you are suggesting that the sources are unreliable and meant to quote a different magazine?) Galilean Electrodynamics is mentioned in many 3rd party sources, not just proceedings, including (1) The American Spectator (2) Topological Foundations of Electromagnetism (3) Against the Tide, and is mentioned in other refereed journals such as (1) American Journal of Physics (2) Journal of Theoretics (3) Solitons and Fractals (3) International Journal of Nuclear Energy Science and Technology, and others. This does not show that magazine is any good, but others have found it notable to cite. --John294 (talk) 17:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 3rd party sources: (1)Mentioned in a letter to the editor (does not establish notability since it is essentially self-promotion). (2)Single citation to an article, does not address the journal itself as a subject (3)Mentioned in a list of "alternative journals": not enough information to establish the journal itself as a subject or to source anything other than it being a fringe journal.
 * Journal sources: (1)Single citation to an article, does not address the journal itself as a subject, (2)Journal of Theoretics is itself a self-published, unindexed fringe journal, (3)Self-citation, (4) Denied access: not sure why.
 * ScienceApologist (talk) 21:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Deleteper nomination. No evidence it satisfies WP:N. (If the articles in the journal are off-base, mainstream scientists should be able to demonstrate the fact. Disagreeing with modern science does not automatically create notability.)Edison (talk) 23:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, Equendil and Edison. VG &#x260E; 00:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete almost no library holdings in WorldCat--fewer than 10.  DGG (talk) 01:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete' notability not sufficiently established. Just because you publish a periodical, does not mean it gets a Wikipedia entry, unless the periodical is particularly well-known, e.g. for its content, or the people who have published in it, or controversies, etc. This publication fails on all those criteria and more. --SJK (talk) 07:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  00:29, 24 September 2008 (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.