Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Science and Christian Belief


 * 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   keep. NW ( Talk ) 15:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Science and Christian Belief

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Article previously prodded with reason "Academic journal without indication of notability, tagged as such since August but no improvement apparent. Journal's own website does not give any indications of notability. Does not meet Notability (academic journals)." Article was de-prodded with reason "added citations". However, the added references are to articles written by editorial board members/editors in other journals, possibly showing that they are notable, but not this journal (see WP:NOTINHERITED). Only one reference (to the "Society, Religion and Technology Project") mentions the journal specifically, but this seems rather insufficient to establish notability. Crusio (talk) 01:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- Crusio (talk) 01:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  -- Crusio (talk) 01:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment More references have been added testifying to the notability of Denis Alexander, but, unfortunately, not the journal. --Crusio (talk) 02:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per well-explained nomination. (I'd add that Notability (academic journals) is a proposal, not policy, although it forms a helpful guide.  Article still does not meet WP:N though.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that at the current RfC for that proposal the only criticisms voiced state that this proposal is not strict enough... --Crusio (talk) 02:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Not saying it's a bad proposal (it's a pretty good one)), just that it's not a consensus policy capable of being met or not met. :-) - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. The journal has a significant history, going back to the journal that was merged into it, and is cited with sufficient frequency by other reliable sources.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The above seems to be an attempt to show that the article meets criterion 3 of Notability (academic journals). It should be noted, however, that this criterion talks about a significant history, not a long history. None of the references added to the journal indicated anything significant about the (admittedly long) history if this journal. The other "references" added are either to articles that appeared in this journal or to articles that appeared elsewhere but were written by someone connected to this journal. None of this contributes an inch to notability or does even belong in this article. The only reasonable addition is the one added by DGG (see below). --Crusio (talk) 11:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * That's correct in part. What I had in mine was both criterion 2 ("The journal is frequently cited by other reliable sources."; for example the reprints of articles from this journal in other RSs would, IMHO, tend to qualify as the largest "citation" I could imagine) and criterion 3 ("The journal has a historic purpose or has a significant history."; though I understand that Crusio's understanding of the intent of that criterion differs from mine).  I've just added a couple of more cites in this regard as well.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If that's how criterion 3 can be interpreted, then the proposal needs re-phrasing, because that is absolutely not in what I had in mind when I wrote it. As for the "frequent citations", for an individual researcher we usually only start thinking about notability if this person's work has been cited hundreds of times. For a journal, this number obviously should be proportionally higher. I have to say that the recent edits to the journal article (adding all kind of cruft) only reinforce the apparent lack of notability. As for articles being reprinted, that is to me a sign that this journal has not a very great reach in the community that it seeks to serve. If it were otherwise, another journal would not want to reprint any of its articles, because that would only mean reprinting stuff almost everybody has already seen. --Crusio (talk) 20:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand that we disagree. But I'm puzzled as to how the addition of the reference to the journal being noted as an important resource in its subject area reinforces your view that it is not notable.  The same goes for the addition of the reference to the journal to which it traces its roots having been the one means through which the Victoria Institute has had recent influence on the British scene.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Adding a reference to some article where someone writes "important resource" is such weak evidence, that for me it actually works in the opposite way. If several people are frantically searching for evidence of notability and this is all they can come up with, then I think the lack of notability has been shown conclusively. --Crusio (talk) 20:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I hear you. But I guess I (and a number of others here) see it differently.  I think that the article now (as compared to how it appeared at the time of AfD) more clearly reflects notability.  I'm still surprised that you find the revisions as "conclusively" reflecting the opposite.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm with Crusio on this one. The more the article relies on mentioning the fact that various distinguished people are tenuously connected to the journal, and the more it relies on sources that plead "this really is an important journal", and the more stridently it trumpets its coverage by various indexing sources that cover just-about-everything, the more firmly I conclude that it has no inherent notability in its own right. If it was impoirtant and notable, it would not need such props (but note that I !voted weak keep, and am still happy with that, or with a merge to the article about the publisher). SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 10:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Just my view of course, but I'm not sure that a merge makes sense. First, there are two "publishers", if by publisher we mean the organization that publishes it rather than the one that prints it.  In such instances, putting it on either's page may well make less sense than having it as a standalone thet is referened and linked to.  Second, I think that at this point the article is sufficiently non-stubby to be a stand-alone article.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Important in its niche. It is included in all the standard religion indexes--I gave the RS for that--, and distributed by one of the principal aggregators. I consider the indexing to be proof of importance from independent sources. It is fairly  widely held for journals of this sort. Alternatively, merge with the article for the publishing society.    DGG ( talk ) 03:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This information seems to satisfy criterion 1 of Notability (academic journals). Given, however, that apparently there is hardly anything that can be said about this journal, I think a merge to the article for the publishing society would be most appropriate. (I have no access to Ulrich's, so I could not check this before bringing this article to AfD). --Crusio (talk) 11:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Only one criterea needs to be met to establish noteability. From Notability (academic journals) - "If a journal meets any one  of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, it is notable." FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Notable, though minor. No reason to delete. Redddogg (talk) 04:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: no indication that it is "notably influential in the world of ideas". This is a good example of why indexing is insufficient to demonstrate notability. There appears to be no coverage beyond that & mentions by related parties -- i.e. no WP:SECONDARY third party coverage to speak of. Whilst the Victoria Institute was once influential, I see no indication that it has been so for nearly a century (no third party coverage in its article after 1927), or that Journal of the Transaction of The Victoria Institute (which does not even garner a mention on VI's article) ever had an impact (even if such an impact confers notability to the merged-to journal, which is highly questionable). "Notable, though minor" would appear to be oxymoronic -- notability requires some indication that the journal is non-minor. A merge to Christians in Science would be acceptable, but only if the indexing-cruft is eliminated. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as nominated. Crafty (talk) 08:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep as a journal that is occasionally mentioned in secondary sources. But get rid of all the fluff describing who indexes it and how many libraries hold it - that is just PR garbage. And resist all attempts to sex it up by mentioning how many distinguished professors are on the editorial board. SNALWIBMA ( talk - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 08:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep It is probably the leading journal worldwide it its very important field. It is very relevant that there are many world-class scientists on its editorial board. And given that the notability is being questioned the information about distribution and indexing is relevant (and not at all PR guff, it must have taken some digging, CiS does not do PR) NBeale (talk) 09:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The Editorial Board contains 6 FRSs, 2 FBAs and one member of the NAS. IMHO this is useful information for users, but when I put it in the article others revert it. It certainly seems relevant for notability. NBeale (talk) 09:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It isn't. See WP:NOTINHERITED. <b style="color:darkblue;">SNALWIBMA</b> ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 09:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Per common consensus at the WikiProject Academic Journals, information on editorial board members is hardly relevant. Just an example, Genes, Brain and Behavior has a Nobel Prize winner and multiple members of national academies of sciences (I never counted, but perhaps a dozen or so) on its editorial board, but the WP article does not even give a link to the journal web page where the board is listed. (And rightly so). --Crusio (talk) 11:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed - the connecton between a journal and its editorial board is often rather tenuous, and it is inappropriate either to list members of the board in a WP article or to use their eminence as a means of boosting the eminence of the journal by association. <b style="color:darkblue;">SNALWIBMA</b> ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 11:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Others will no doubt know more than I do on this, but a couple of thoughts on editorial boards. First, in certain cases editorial boards are active.  In such cases, I would think that it is certainly relevant if notable persons are on the board.  WP:NOTINHERITED would have nothing to do with that situation -- more relevant would be the rule in WP:BAND, that says that if you have two notable band members, the band is notable.  Second, no doubt there are instances in which the editorial boards are not active.  There, there is a fair argument that that may not help much with notability.  I'm not sure, though, how we distinguish, and in the absence of knowing the board's level of activity I'm not sure that we should delete references to notable members of the board.  But I'm open to hearing others' thoughts.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * With all due respect to WP:AJ this represents a tiny fraction of active editors and there are only a handful of frequent contributors, of which Crusio appears to be the most active. It's great that people are willing to do this work, but they should not then expect to tell all other Editors what they should do and think. Most people would assume that a journal like Genes, Brain and Behavior would have lots of leading scientists on its editorial board.  Many people would be surprised to find that Science and Christian Belief had.  The point of an article is to tell people things they find interesting and useful. NBeale (talk) 13:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This was common consensus on WP:AJ long before I got involved. In any case, I did mention this to say that everybody should slavishly follow what others say or do, just to indicate that a group of editors specializing in this subject all agree that this information should not be part of an article on a journal. --Crusio (talk) 14:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I can see nothing in the draft policy to say that "we all agree that X should not be part of an article on a journal". All I read is that the normal basic article would not have it.  Have I missed something? NBeale (talk) 15:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I don't have a dog in the fight between Christianity and Science, but I don't see the harm in having this article on Wikipedia. Does the journal exist? If so, keep the article. If the journal exists and you want to delete the article, I have to wonder what your motives are. ProfGiles (talk) 15:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Could you please read WP:AGF? Thanks. --Crusio (talk) 15:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Could you please answer my question - does the journal exist? Thanks. ProfGiles (talk) 15:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If you want bare existence, not notability, to be the standard for inclusion on Wikipedia, then you are welcome to call for WP:Notability to be disestablished as a guideline. Beyond that, we discuss facts and policy here, not motivations. Your 'wondering' as to the latter is off-topic and uncalled for. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Here are the facts and policy as I see them. Motivation is extremely relevant if notability is to be used as an excuse to start deleting content. "Notability" is a subjective term and also a term that can be used as a bludgeon to eliminate content for ideological reasons. In terms of "academic journals" what is considered notable or not notable in a field is, despite all protests to the contrary, entirely subjective. In my field, philosophy, there are analytical philosophers who consider continental philosophy journals completely unnotable and worthless and use such rationale as:the editorial board are not "real" philosophers, didn't get their degrees from the right university, don't publish in our journals, etc. Continental philosophers have identical feelings and arguments about analytical philosophy journals. It is driven by ideological prejudices not any objective criteria of notability. There is a journal of Atheist Studies (which currently does not have an entry on Wikipedia) - should Theists be allowed to campaign to ban any mention of it? The fact is that we are wise to avoid all such arguments as specious and harmful because Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral and not take a point of view and calling a journal "unnotable" could very well be taking a point of view and not an objectively valid judgment of the journal. Scholarship thrives on open debate and the many journals out there that contribute to it, no matter how small the contribution, should be welcomed. The bar for declaring a journal "unnotable" must bevery high. If the journal exists and a call is made to delete reference to it then it is not only germane but necessary to ask what the motivation is for that call. It is very called for and on-topic to ask what harm is being done by the inclusion of this article. I will also point out that asking for someone's motives refers to professional motives, not personal motives and in no way implies anything about a person's character. Respectfully, ProfGiles (talk) 16:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If the journal didn't exist we wouldn't be here as the thing would have been speedily deleted as a hoax. For the rest, I agree completely with the above comment by Hrafn. And by the way, as for my motives, I couldn't care less about the "fight between Christianity and Science" and have been on both sides of the fence (as Hrafn can attest from our past disagreements over Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith :-). --Crusio (talk) 16:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * (i) Although I don't know much about the positions taken by authors in this journal, from what I know of its sponsors (Christians in Science and the Victoria Institute), I'd be surprised if I disagreed that much. (ii) Your assumption that we'd delete based upon ideological bias assumes a high degree of naiveté on our part. If we disagree with a position sufficiently forcefully to delete it, then we'd be far better off to marshal opposing experts to demolish that position in the article instead. (iii) Subjective interpretations of 'notability' is why we attempt to find measures that at least approximate to being objective, intersubjective -- the most basic of which is WP:GNG's "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". (iv) Wikipedia does not exist to foster "open debate", and it is unclear how its having an article on a journal fosters such a debate. Those taking part in the debate already know what journals they consider worthy of contribution to, or rebuttal of. Those reading Wikipedia read a distillation of the 'after-battle-reports' in WP:SECONDARY sources that summarise the resultant academic consensus from the debate. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You are assuming that my asking why one would want this journal declared "unnotable" is an accusation of ideological bias. Pointing out that ideological bias is used to declare journals "unnotable" and that we should be wary of setting precedent that allows for such ideological cleansing is not accusing anyone of such a bias. I believe WP:AGF is appropriate reading and ask that you give the assumption of good intention as much as you ask for it.


 * Your last comment provides two arguments for why this article should be kept. Your point "ii" shows that the debate over a journal's worth should be conducted by countering the ideas raised by the journal, not trying to squash mention of the journal on Wikipedia. Your point "iv" says that people develop their own opinions on what journals they consider worthy in which case why have Wikipedia be the arbitrator of what journals are worthy of not? Why not let Wikipedia remain neutral and not have a small group of people decide for others what is worthy or not? If, as you imply in point "iv" that the presence of the article does not effect the debate, why bother arguing about its presence?


 * Finally, your point "iii" seems to advance the opinion that a journals worth be determined by "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." That criterion would be a popularity contest and not necessarily a judge of the quality of the journal. I am well aware of the Piercian notion of collective induction as a means to determine truth, which has morphed into a version of what we now call "peer review" but I also am aware of the shortcomings of that approach in its resistance to new and different ideas and I always shudder to think of truth and worth being subject to the approval of overseers. I side with J.S. Mill in letting the marketplace of ideas be free and open.


 * Well, I have said my piece and have work to do, so decide what you will, but I ask again, what harm is really being done by this article being on Wikipedia? Peace, ProfGiles (talk) 21:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * ProfGiles: (i) You did not understand what I said. Your miscomprehension is too pervasive for me to bother addressing it point by point. (ii) You do not understand Wikipedia. It does not exist to "effect [sic] the debate". Its articles do not exist to affect the debate. Therefore it does not choose their presence or absence on the basis of how they affect the debate. Its target readership is not participants of the debate (who would be expected to read the WP:PRIMARY sources debating it for themselves), but the general public -- so bases its WP:Notability threshold on what the general public might be interested in (which I'm afraid is a "popularity contest", of sorts) -- not whether a journal is "worthy". (iii) Finally, this AfD is not a WP:SOAPBOX for what you think Wikipedia aught to be. If you don't like the notability guidelines, then go to WT:Notability and lobby to have them changed. If you don't like the way Wikipedia is run, then go and start your own wiki. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Even with someone as substantial ITRW as ProfGiles we should remember WP:BITE, and we should always remember WP:CIVIL. NBeale (talk) 10:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep or possibly Merge to Christians in Science. The latter is already pretty stubby and might benefit from having this material in it. As for the journal, it's been going for 20 years (reaching volume 21), so it's solid (i.e. this is not a journal currently sitting at "volume 1"). I can't find it at the ISI Web of Knowledge — does this have any bearing on its fate? I'd echo the remarks above re: who the journal has on its editorial board — there are surely better criteria than this. --P LUMBAGO 18:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment WP:Notability (academic journals) is a proposed guideline that has not been approved yet. So it may not be the best one to evaluate this case. As for the article improvements since the AfD started, I have mixed feelings; some of the additions, like DGG's, help notability, whereas others (such as the additions of refs 6–9, which say stuff about one of the editors but nothing about the journal itself) seem to just be throwing irrelevant refs at the problem. Overall, I feel pretty neutral on this; just wanted to point out that Notability (academic journals) is not the right guideline to be using now. <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 18:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As I remarked above, WP:Notability (academic journals) s indeed only a proposal at this point. However, at its RfC, I don't think anybody criticized it for being not inclusive enough, but several editors criticized it for being too inclusive. It's of interest, therefore, that the current article barely meets the requirements of this proposed guideline. --Crusio (talk) 18:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep -- We have lots of articles on academic and semi academci journals. My guess is that its launch, coinciding with the chage of name of its sister journal, from Victoria Institute was in fact more of a split.  Some one above found it in 120 libraries; that so many would think it worth taking implies notability.  I suspect that this nomination arises from the prejudice that Science and Religion are in opposition to each other, which is patently false, sicne they are addressing different issues.  Far from beign able to prove that there is no God, science is not even equipped to address the question, let alone answer it. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I thought that it was clear from all I have said above that my nomination has nothing whatsoever to do with the journal's subject matter. I ONLY look at objective measures. Please assume good faith, it really is starting to irritate the hell out of me that each time that a subject related to religion comes up, some people immediately start yelling "prejudice". As for those 120 libraries, given the large number of seminaries, theological schools, etc. (especially in the US), I am not sure whether that is an especially high number. In any case, there seems to be hardly anything that can be said with certainty about this journal (despite the best efforts of several editors, see above), so I think that if not deleted because of a lack of notability, the article should be merged with that on its publishing society (as suggested above by DGG). --Crusio (talk) 17:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment While its subject matter is not at all comparable (neither scientifically nor politically; it's just the first example that came to mind), the article on the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons includes its in-house journal as a section. That might be a model to follow if merge is favoured.  --P LUMBAGO  09:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Important journal with hundreds of hits and citations on Google Scholar. According to Notability (academic journals) this alone does not establish noteability, but thanks to DGG we can see criterea 1 is met, which even on its own makes the journal noteable. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm not especially impressed by the citation counts or the editorial board membership, but I think the complex and long history of the journal goes some way towards Notability (academic journals) #3, and the references quoted within the article also make a case for #1. The article could stand cleanup (remove the worldcat holdings and editorial board puffery) but that's not a reason for deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree that it meets the requirements of Notability_(academic_journals).   D r e a m Focus  03:55, 10 November 2009 (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.