Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rejecta Mathematica


 * 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The result was nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) LaundryPizza03 (talk) 03:57, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Rejecta Mathematica

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable "journal" which (according to our article) only ever published two issues, and no longer exists. My initial feeling was, This looks interesting, followed by, Hmmm, The Economist and Ars Technica as sources; looks pretty solid.

But, looking at the cited articles closer, they were published on Jul 20th and 29th, 2009, which coincides with the first issue. My own searching found an item in MAA, also dated Jul 29th, 2009. I can't find any other WP:RS, and even the blog posts and such I've found, are mostly clustered around that date. I assume, then, that they're all in response to some press release, and thus not really independent coverage. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Based on the better sources people have found, I withdraw my nomination. Who am I to argue with Science and Nature?  -- RoySmith (talk) 23:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)


 *  Weak delete  - This reminds me a little of Null result. I agree that the article is currently a bit promotional (failing NPOV). If there were more coverage of the article, this could be dealt with. But with such limited coverage, it is difficult to write a NPOV article sourced by RS. Also, while I don't think there is a SNG for journals, I don't think that this passes TEXTBOOKS, or any similar SNGs and the GNG case is fairly weak as RoySmith points out. Smmurphy(Talk) 19:17, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I've struck my vote as the nom wishes to withdraw and I have no objection.Smmurphy(Talk) 00:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep It's a fine joke that there should be an attempt to reject this article. But it is not well founded as it is easy to find further coverage in works such as Ethics and Science; Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society; Readersourcing—a manifesto; Micro‐credits in scientific publishing; &c.  Naturally, as the project didn't last long, the coverage is limited but notability does not expire and so we're good.  See also Deletionpedia. Andrew D. (talk) 19:23, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Most mentions I can find are just that, brief mentions (e.g.,,   ). The summer 2009 coverage was likely prompted by a press release, but not all of it was based on one, judging by the Ars Technica piece , which has extra commentary, and to a lesser degree the Economist one . Nature took the trouble of interviewing them, which at least indicates that Nature thought they were worth the trouble .  Science also took the time to ask them a few questions, it appears . For me, all this adds up to a "merits a mention"; if someone can think of a good target for a merge and redirect, I'd be amenable to that. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:24, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I cut some language that sounded rather promotional to me and added a couple references. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. There's also book coverage from 2012 and 2016, demonstrating ongoing interest in this topic, although both of these are not very in-depth. I can see how one might think that this is a flash-in-the-pan joke not worthy of coverage, but our opinions on whether something should be notable are not very relevant to whether it actually is notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:34, 17 January 2018 (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.