Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Rutherford Journal


 * 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. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

The Rutherford Journal

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article on a journal that has produced 4 volumes since 2005 (the last one in 2011), without any indication whether it is still functional or not (besides the fact that its website is still online). It seems deceptively well sourced following reference bombing after the article was PRODded. At this moment, the article contains no less than 16 references, as follows. 1/ The faculty page of the editor, mentioning his editorship of the journal and his publications therein. 2/ Trivial non-selective index. 3/ The journal's "about page, consisting of a list of editorial board members and one line of 10 words (which, BTW, does not even support the first phrase of the article). 4/ A brief review in an Australian journal of the first issue of the journal. 5/ Another faculty page for the editor, mentioning the journal. 6/ An article on Rutherford, with one citation to an article that appeared in this journal. 7/ An article about Rutherford that appeared in this journal. 8/ A search of GBooks, showing a rather modest number of citations to articles published in the journal. None of the search results is about the journal itself. Even ignoring the current discussion at Wikipedia talk:NJournals, this does not indicate a pass of criterium 2. 9/ Trivial, non-selective database. 10/ Mirror of the journal homepage. 11/ Dead link to Intute website, which was a non-selective database. 12/ List of external links on a website dedicated to Alan Turing, maintained by the editor of the journal. 13/ Listing of the journal and some articles from it without any further discussion. 14/ Listing in a bibliography. 15/ A website hosted by WordPress reproducing some photos from the journal, which is otherwise not mentioned. 16/ Another WordPress blog quoting two articles from the journal.

As outlined above,the 16 sources in the article do not provide the multiple independent reliable sources providing in-depth discussion of the journal needed to meet WP:GNG. None of the databases mentioned is a selective database in the sense of WP:NJournals. Therefore this fails both GNG and NJournals. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 04:24, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 04:32, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:04, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails SIGCOV. DerbyCountyinNZ  (Talk Contribs) 05:51, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 12:17, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 12:17, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Experimental Philosophy, Volume 2 (Oxford University Press): Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Cognitive Science (Oxford University Press): Companion to the History of Science (Wiley): for Humanity: Information Technology to Advance Society (CRC Press): Computability in Context: Computation and Logic in the Real World(World Scientific): Boolean Logic to Switching Circuits and Automata (Springer): , Physics and Beyond (Springer): Realism: Ontological and Epistemological Investigations (de Gruyter): Popper (Boston Studies in Philosophy of Science): Randomness and Complexity (World Scientific): Review of the journal in Historical Records of Australian Science: Jenkin, John, review of Copeland, Jack, ed., The Rutherford Journal: the New Zealand Journal for the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology (2005), Historical Records of Australian Science, vol. 17, no. 2, 2006, pp. 298-299. Examples of listings of the journal by professional bodies: Journal of the Association for the History of Computing: New Zealand Academic Journals: Isis Current Bibliography of the History of Science (published by the History of Science Society), on p. 61 under Communication and Computer Technology: The Charles Babbage Institute Center for the History of Information Technology: Directory of Open Access Scholarly Resources: Examples of listings of the journal in reliable wikis Chess Programming Wiki: WWW-VL: History: Internet: The Full Wiki: It is also referenced from other pages of Wikipedia, e.g. Leo Corry Examples of scholarly articles referring to articles published in the journal    
 * Keep – the journal is well referenced by humanities standards (rather different to scientific standards). Examples of references to the journal in reputable books published by leading international publishing houses:
 * Specifically, Criterion 2 of WP:NJOURNALS, which is stated to be sufficient qualification for a stand-alone article: Criterion 2: The journal is frequently cited by other reliable sources. The journal has been reviewed by Historical Records of Australian Science, a reputable journal listed on Wikipedia, as well as independent references elsewhere. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 14:59, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment – note, for information, that the journal is still functional, not that this is a criterion in Wikipedia. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 15:02, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. As I said above, a smattering of citations (even for a humanities journal) to articles published in the journal does not establish notability. Neither do the "listings by professional bodies". Most such "bodies" will often link to sites that may be of interest to their members, without this being the result of any significant vetting process. BTW, anything else you care to disclose about this journal? --Randykitty (talk) 15:22, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This is an area in which I have academic knowledge, so I know this journal is academically "notable" and respected. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 23:46, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Is this what you mean with "an area in which I have academic knowledge, so I know this journal is academically "notable" and respected"? --Randykitty (talk) 23:53, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Potential keep -- A peer-reviewed journal edited by a New Zealand professor is likely to be notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:04, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Given the discussions taking place at the talk page of NJournals, would you mind explaining on what guideline or policy your !vote is based? --Randykitty (talk) 17:26, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * A case of WP:COMMONSENSE for anyone in academia, with which I concur. A journal with a notable editor is highly likely to be notable itself in practice. This should be a consideration under WP:NJOURNALS IMHO even if it is not at the moment. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 23:46, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That would be highly undesirable and contrary to WP:NOTINHERITED. (Quite apart from the fact that the article on the editor as it stands does not show notability under either GNG or PROF). --Randykitty (talk) 23:56, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Under WP:PROF: "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline". He is the leading scholar worldwide on Alan Turing, as illustrated by his list of published books. I note that another criterion is: "The person is or has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal", an "WP:INHERITED" attribute. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 12:45, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That refers to the person, not the journal. A journal is not notable because its editor is. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:15, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Jpbowen please do read WP:NOTINHERITED, which both Randykitty and Headbomb are referring you to. Please also see WP:BLUDGEON. Jytdog (talk) 14:08, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


 * delete perhaps marginally notable as it is discussed in some other sources, but based on my review of the article, it is under promotional pressure and is not worth the community's effort to maintain it.  If it were solidly notable that would not tip the balance. Jytdog (talk) 02:20, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Upon review of the nomination and arguments presented here, this fails WP:NJOURNALS, so I'll have to !vote delete. However, I'd have no objection to redirect/merging with Jack Copeland or  University of Canterbury. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:21, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 *  Weak keep  - First, as has been pointed out, this journal has, itself, been the subject of an academic review (Review of the journal in Historical Records of Australian Science: Jenkin, John, review of Copeland, Jack, ed., The Rutherford Journal: the New Zealand Journal for the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology (2005), Historical Records of Australian Science, vol. 17, no. 2, 2006, pp. 298-299. ) (note: The review is middling, saying: "Overall a very creditable beginning; and it is a pleasure to see a new journal in this broad field, especially one from south of the equator.') If there were two such reviews, I think the subject would clearly pass GNG. With just one, it isn't so clear. Second, as has been pointed out, articles in the journal have been widely cited. However, a review of those citations, most (all?) seem to be citations in passing and paired with citations to other articles in other journals. If some of those citations suggested the journal was publishing more influential articles, I think the subject would be more clearly generally or historically important (I would invoke the spirit of WP:TBK or something similar). In my opinion, then, the article doesn't obviously pass or fail GNG. Given that, while the subject is slightly outside of my expertise, I trust the opinion of Jpbowen that the subject of the article is suitable for inclusion and tend to agree based on my own assessment. Smmurphy(Talk) 18:15, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm not sure that is neutral here. --Randykitty (talk) 19:10, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing that out. I missed that you posted that link earlier, I would have discounted his support a bit had I seen it. But I am not quite swayed, sorry. I would like to note that mention of the Journal is already at Copeland's page, so there would be nothing to merge if the consensus is not to keep. Smmurphy(Talk) 20:03, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I am certainly knowledgeable of the area and know that the journal is respected with an eminent editorial board, many with their own Wikipedia pages. For example:


 * Margaret Boden OBE, University of Sussex, UK
 * S. Barry Cooper, University of Leeds, UK
 * Daniel Dennett, Tufts University, USA
 * Denis Dutton, University of Canterbury, New Zealand
 * Paul E. Griffiths, University of Exeter, UK
 * Horace Romano Harré, Georgetown University, USA
 * Alan Musgrave, University of Otago, New Zealand
 * Graham Oddie, University of Colorado at Boulder, USA
 * Gualtiero Piccinini, University of Missouri–St. Louis, USA
 * Huw Price, University of Sydney, Australia
 * Nicolas Rasmussen, University of New South Wales, Australia
 * Doron Swade MBE, Computer History Museum, USA
 * Paul Thagard, University of Waterloo, Canada
 * Stephen Wolfram, Wolfram Research, USA
 * From: I would deem this notable in the common sense of the word at least. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 19:43, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think having an eminent editorial board says too much. Dennett, to take a famous member of that list, is on the editorial board of 16 journals, according to his online cv. Many of the other journals have pages, all are to me probably notable (many are clearly so), and The Rutherford Journal seems the least notable. Smmurphy(Talk) 20:03, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that this doesn't say much. As long as a journal is not complete crap (and even then, often), academics will generally readily agree to be a member of the board, given that it almost never means that they actually have to do something... It's a recommendation for the journal and it looks nice on your CV. So unless there are reliable sources that document any substantive involvement of these people with the journal, it really doesn't say anything. --Randykitty (talk) 00:08, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Obviously this is a borderline case with different editors having different opinions, but even the "least notable" journal (to quote above) is still WP:NOTABLE. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 23:40, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I've struck my vote. Smmurphy(Talk) 13:41, 22 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Notability is not demonstrated by the sources - Randykitty has accurately summed them up after the refbomb was unleashed. The editorial board does not determine notability for an academic journal - it is the journal itself that must stand on its own merits per WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:ISNOT. Also, thank you to  for showing me that User:Jpbowen has an article published in this journal . Hence, in my view he is acting in concert with a bias as demonstrated by over-enthusiastically arguing for "Keep". In other words, he has skin in the game and really should recuse himself, rather than arguing endlessly for "keep".


 * This journal is, furthermore, not notable at all. Besides my initial arguments, this journal is not listed in acceptable selective databases and no significant historical impact has been noted by any sources. Hence, this journal fails WP:NJOURNALS and GNG. It appears that the journal went inactive in 2012 after only four issues or volumes beginning in 2005-2006 . So far no evidence has been presented that contradicts this, and no evidence has been presented that shows its significant impact, historical or otherwise.


 * It appears there is almost a three year gap between Volume 2, published in 2007, and Volume 3 published in 2010. Then there is a two year gap between Volume 3 and Volume 4 published in 2012. So, I have to wonder if this is a serious endeavor or more like hobby for the founder who is still editor. Compare this with other notable journals that rigorously publish at regular intervals, such as monthly or quarterly, and some even annually. These are designed to disseminate current ideas and solutions circulating in that field to their audience. For example see Annals of Science and Archive for History of Exact Sciences - both comparably categorized in the category:History of science journals. Also, please note the selective databases section in each of these. The journal under discussion here is not even close to parity with these. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:10, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you explain why reference 4 "Jenkin, John (2006). "Review of Copeland, Jack, ed., The Rutherford Journal: the New Zealand Journal for the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology (2005)". Historical Records of Australian Science. 17(2). pp. 298–299." is compatible with "This journal is, furthermore, not notable at all."? One or two more references like this would demonstrate WP:GNG, conclusively as per Smmurphy above. For information, the journal is not inactive, with issues planned for 2017 and 2018. Happy Christmas to all! —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 20:51, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Whether the journal is still active or not has not really any bearing on its notability. Still, just out of curiosity, could you point us to the source of your contention that issues are planned for 2017 and 2018? --Randykitty (talk) 20:58, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * See . See also selective index listing in ARCH (Arts and Humanities Resource) hosted by the University of Oxford. Does this count for anything in Wikipedia terms? —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 10:19, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * A mirror of the journal contents and a catalog entry don't really do the job for me. --Randykitty (talk) 14:07, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Reply: I am unable to find the article noted in reference # 4 (per above question), therefore, based on Jpbowen's connection to this journal, I cannot assume what the contents of this article says, or that it exists. I see an article title - but that doesn't mean anything. I am willing to read the article if a link can be provided or even a PDF document. Also, I agree that a 2016 issue does not confer notability and does not indicate future issues are forthcoming (which has no bearing on notability - but, for me, this does give a broader perspective). As far as I can tell, the link to the ARCH index does not tell me anything - and nothing I have come across indicates this is selective for academic journals. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:37, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This is that article, I believe. Smmurphy(Talk) 04:51, 29 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment A review of the COI discovered in this AFD has been opened at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. Mkdw talk 03:04, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * See my comment there. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 17:26, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. It's in the standard bibliography, Isis Current Bibliography of the History of Science and Its Cultural Influences.    DGG ( talk ) 06:06, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Onel 5969  TT me 19:49, 30 December 2016 (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.