Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journal of Nuclear Physics


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:56, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Journal of Nuclear Physics

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The title notwithstanding, this article is actually about a blog where a private inventor self-publishes material related to his purported cold fusion device, the Energy Catalyzer (which probably also should be deleted, but that's another kettle of fish). Our article says next to nothing about the Journal of Nuclear Physics itself (largely because there isn't anything to be said), instead largely consisting of a list of links to 'real' journals about nuclear physics. There are no reliable sources anywhere which discuss the blog itself, and it badly fails Notability (web). Links to the site from elsewhere on the web are predominantly from fringe cold fusion forums&mdash;and even those sources are more than a little bit ambivalent about it. This blog should not be confused with the Soviet Journal of Nuclear Physics, a legitimate scientific publication which ceased operations in 1992. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC), expanded 14:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Cites about the dubious nature of the claims, not the actual "journal" (cough, cough, blog). Dennis Brown (talk) 14:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- Crusio (talk) 21:06, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. Regardless of the content of the blog, is it notable? // Liftarn (talk)
 * Comment That was my whole point, the only sources talking about it are talking about the dubious nature of it, and those aren't reliable sources themselves. WP:RS sources are ignoring the blog in droves ;) Dennis Brown (talk) 15:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Yes, I did find some RS that mentions the blog, but only in a sentence. // Liftarn (talk) 16:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I would agree the source is reliable, but quoting from the source itself " Note that the site is not a scientific journal – all the material was presented and examined mainly by Rossi himself. "When I say that this is a preliminary report that I sent by fax to Rossi, I certainly do not consider it a scientific publication. Because you can not publish where you do peer review yourself, right?” Professor Levi said. ", making this a passing glance at the site, highly qualified as to its reliability (pure blog), and by itself not significant enough coverage to really be called "notable". If it had several of these types of cites, it would still be questionable from my reading of WP:N. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Although the article is not and probably will not contain much information, two things are important: 1) it clearly states that it is not connected to the other journals. So it is valuable for avoiding confusion. 2) Peer-review-journals seem the be very reluctant in accepting anything that has to do with cold fusion. The existence of this blog-journal is an example of the effects and disadvantages of the current peer review system. --217.10.60.85 (talk) 15:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete misleading at least. It has the title of prestigious journals, but it is a blog... about a highly controversial topic. We don't need to make extra publicity to an already controversial topic. Nergaal (talk) 17:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:FRINGE and WP:WEB. The only reliable third-party sources I could find in Google news archive that mention this blog do so only trivially as an aside to their coverage of its founders' cold fusion claims. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:34, 14 April 2011 (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.