Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Journal of Botany


 * 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   redirect to Watsonia (journal). since the argument is that this is notable as essentially a coninuation of Watsonia (journal) then we clearly do not need twio articles per FORK so the redirect arguments are the most valid Spartaz Humbug! 10:32, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

New Journal of Botany

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Journal that does not yet exist, not a single article published yet. Impossible to say whether this will become notable: violation of WP:NOTCRYSTAL. No independent sources, not indexed anywhere: does not meet WP:Notability (academic journals) or WP:GNG. Article creation premature. Prod was removed with argument "Deletion notice removed because external references added and more details about the journal to show it does exist". Crusio (talk) 16:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, you can delete it if you like. I thought it would be useful for anyone who previously received Watsonia and wanted to know what was happening. The article isn't less helpful than, say, the one on the Journal of Botany. Would you suggest that I create the page again when the first volume comes out? Scalloway (talk) 18:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * In principle, articles should only be created if journals are notable. That will take a few years. Meanwhile, if this really is a clear successor to Watsonia, then I don't see much harm in a (short) remark in the article on that journal about a successor journal being created. Looks like that article needs updating/expanding anyway.--Crusio (talk) 18:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, I've done that. Go on then, delete it. Scalloway (talk) 18:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment That's not so easy, I am not an admin so I cannot do that. When the AfD is over, an admin will delete it. --Crusio (talk) 19:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 20:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Clear keep for me, for the sole reason of being the official successor to the Watsonia. Contrary to Crusio's opinion, I would suggest to have the article around for now and resubmit should it turn out not to become a notable journal. Already today, we would at least have to have a redirect at this place, but as the issn and the launch date are known it would be a waste of work to delete, and soon thereafter recreate the article. --Pgallert (talk) 08:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I think you need to read WP:NOTCRYSTAL. It's the other way around: we only create an article if a subject is shown to be notable, not delete one if it turns out not to become notable. --Crusio (talk) 18:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot. Normally I pick myself what I want to read, but now that you lured me into it: Which point of that policy specifically applies to the article discussed? It is verifiable (general passage), not about an event (point 1), not a systematic pattern or predictable name (point 2), and not original research (point 3). The last point equally does not apply. The core requirement per WP:CRYSTAL, if I interpret that right, is "it would merit an article if the event had already occurred", and that's what I was suggesting as being obvious. --Pgallert (talk) 14:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, with reference to WP:NOTCRYSTAL or without, statement "we only create an article if a subject is shown to be notable, not delete one if it turns out not to become notable" still stands, for example, via WP:GNG. If you/whoever else can demonstrate notability of the subject right now - good (IMHO it is not demonstrated as of now), if not - you'll need to wait until it can be demonstrated. Ipsign (talk) 15:14, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete (and create redirect to Watsonia Watsonia (journal) for the time being). Ipsign (talk) 11:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * * Delete (and create redirect to Watsonia for the time being). If and when it can demonstrate notability, no objections to recreating the article. --HighKing (talk) 16:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Watsonia (journal) (not Watsonia). Plausible search term. No reason to delete. If journal becomes notable, then the history is fully available for anyone to recreate the article. -Atmoz (talk) 18:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep It's notable, as the continuation of a previous notable journal.  When titles change this much, we should do a new article. At this stage in planning, it's not crystal.    DGG ( talk ) 02:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sure that in any case, there should be only one article about this journal; if it is Watsonia (journal) redirected to New Journal of Botany or vice versa, I don't really care, but as this is one single entity with two different names, there should be one single article (at least to avoid duplication) - and second one should be a redirect. Ipsign (talk) 10:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I could live with a redirect to Watsonia and this being mentioned in that article. Although I value DGG's opinion in these matters highly, I don't think we should create separate articles. I know librarians keep such journals different, but I rather suspect that this had some practical reasons, to do with the physical (printed) format: many libraries would place journals in alphabetical order on their shelves (not in storage perhaps, but certainly the shelves accessible to the users). As it is, it is difficult enough to write a substantial article about a scientific journal and if a journal is a clear successor to another one, I'd merge them under the newest name and redirect the old one to the newer one. --Crusio (talk) 11:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, and put a redirect to it on Watsonia (journal). The article already explains it's a forthcoming publication to replace another, and that is useful information. LemonMonday    Talk   21:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There's lots of "useful information" that doesn't get into WP. Phone directories, for example. And lots of info that is not "useful" gets into WP. What counts is notability and that does not equal usefulness. --Crusio (talk) 22:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank-you for that lesson. In that case it's notable. LemonMonday    Talk   22:51, 23 November 2010 (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.