Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forum of Mathematics

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:15, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Forum of Mathematics

[edit]
Forum of Mathematics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable: journals don't even exist yet. Article creation vastly premature. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Article dePRODded with reason "The announcement of these journals is an important step in the open-access movement". Even if true, this is not a reason for notability. However, there are by now hundreds of OA journals and almost all major publishers now have at least a few, so it is difficult to see what is special about these ones. The only independent sources are to blog posts. Until these journals become notable: Delete. Guillaume2303 (talk) 20:03, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Guillaume2303 says there are many open-access journals. The Electronic Journal of Combinatorics is one of those. It's for papers in certain areas of research that can be considered combinatorics. Are there any general ones like this in mathematics? I wonder how we should treat a blog post by a world-renowned authority when considering what are "reliable sources", or whatever the term is? I know John Baez's blog posts have been cited a lot by Wikipedia articles. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:57, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Sorry, but I am not seeing widespread noteriety pertaining to this annoucement -- please see here and here. This doesn't really satisfy WP:GNG (at this time). Also, I don'see how this is an intersting development more than any other Open Access journal that has been established in the last few years. Some have become notable (and worthy of inclusion) and some have not. Unfortunately, this journal has not had enough time to establish noteriety of any sort. Also, of course, the prestige of the founders and editors is not inherited by the journal itself. Also a blog post is not necessarily a WP:RS reliable source. --Steve Quinn (talk) 20:05, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The three links at the end of the article consitute the significant coverage required by WP:GNG, in my opinion. In response to some issues raised above:
  1. Blogs aren't usually considered reliable sources, but some exceptions apply. Quoting from WP:USERG: "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." This is certainly true of blogs by Tim Gowers and Terence Tao.
  2. WP:NJournals lists three criteria, of which the third is "The journal has a historic purpose or has a significant history." It could be argued that this journal has a historic purpose.
  3. The primary criteria for notability are those set out in WP:GNG. If this journal meets the GNG, as I think it does, then arguments that it fails Njournals are irrelevant here.
  4. Cambridge University Press has established an editorial board and announced that they will publish the journal. There is no speculation involved here; the Wikipedia article states verifiable facts. In other words, WP:CRYSTAL doesn't apply. Jowa fan (talk) 08:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with your two points about blogs and GNG overruling NJournals. CRYSTAL applies because at this point, we cannot be sure this undertaking is going to work (I agree that the chances of failure are very low, but nothing is certain and even reputed publishers like CUP have occasionally launched a dud). I certainly disagree with the argument that there is a historic purpose here. There are thousands of OA journals and some of the very first ones (like the EJC mentioned above) were in mathematics and had notable people involved. I don't see anything special about these journals at this point. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:04, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • On those four points:
  1. As you write, "when produced by an established expert on the topic". Neither is an established experts on publishing; their blogs aren't publishing blogs.
  2. It can't have a significant history/historic purpose before it's published.
  3. That's simply your view, not a reason; but it's usual to use the more specific guideline when available.
  4. CUP publishes many things, the vast majority of which are not notable.
--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 19:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment -- I don't think the blog posts by Gowers and Tao can be considered reliable sources because they are not independent third party reporters. They have a stake in promoting their own journal. At best, in terms of reliable sourcing, these two have conflict of interest. Furthermore, as per JohnBlackburne, it can't have a signifigant historic impact before its even published. Any kind of characterization that this is a historic event is an attempt to inflate the signifigance of a publication that isn't. Additionally, because there doesn't seem to be anything remarkable above other OA journals that are already published, I have to agree with the others that WP:CRYSTAL does apply. Also inflating the signigance of a publication or research is not a bad thing, it is happens frequently enough. Just ask anyone who keeps up with the research in their field (IMHO). It is just inclusion in Wikipedia cannot be based on "hype" WP:PUFFERY. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 07:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:CRYSTAL: "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation...1. Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." As far as I can see, the facts documented in the article are verifiable, and the publication of the journals is almost certain to take place. Exactly which part of WP:CRYSTAL applies? Do you agree that the key issue is notability, or can you point to specific parts of the article that you would decribe as speculation? As for WP:PUFFERY, it's just an essay, not policy or guideline. Jowa fan (talk) 13:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CRYSTAL applies as it is assumed that these journals will become notable, something we cannot yet know. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PEACOCK is actually what I meant - which is part of the WP:MOS (a guideline). Also, I did not realize that Wikipedia had such an eloquent essay at WP:PUFFERY. Thanks for pointing that out. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 14:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also WP:CRYSTAL does seem to apply. First, I can only see that one acceptable source has discussed this topic and that is the Australian newspaper (the blogs probably cannot be considered). Therefore, it does not have sufficient widespread interest to cross the threshold into noteriety (or notability). Second, discussion and arguments about the prospects for success, notability, or whether some development will occur, are mostly taking place at this AfD discussion. There is not a flurry of wide spread press coverage that is the same as if a notable event already happened. For an example, take any new "something" that has grabbed the imagination of the public and press. Then see the press coverage (and sometimes research coverage) such as this: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 15:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or incubate  The speculation here is not of interest to Wikipedia at this time, as we don't need to speculate about the future, we can wait for it.  Looks like this topic needs to wait until at least January 2013 to come back, and possibly January 2014.  If it makes anyone happier, then incubate it.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep An IP editor added to the article some non-neutral phrases like "high-quality" and "prestigious", however these have now been removed and the rest of the article is purely factual, therefore WP:PEACOCK and WP:PUFFERY do not apply to the content of this article. Since the journals aren't available yet, the guideline WP:NJournals is clearly not applicable to this situation. The article does mention future dates but these refer to the announced schedule - they are not predictions, therefore WP:CRYSTAL does not apply either. The subject of the article has been covered in the media as the main topic of a news article so certainly passes the criteria in WP:GNG - the content of the article can easily be verified from the sources listed. Mistory (talk) 05:02, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the time of writing, WP:GNG is somewhat inconsistent with itself with regards to the issue of multiple sources: The guideline-section of WP:GNG says m.s. are generally expected but it does not say they are essential. The reasoning behind the guideline is given in the "Why do we ..."-section which offers the explanation: "we require multiple sources because ..." even though this was not stated as a requirement in the guideline section, - and the fact that the guideline doesn't state this as a requirement is emphasised in the footnotes to the guideline-section where it specifically says: "In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view". Mistory (talk) 06:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mostly, the Peacock-(ing) and Puffery-(tizing) I was refering to were the inflated descriptions by the blog authors. Apparently I got the idea across - which is, "all we want are the facts, ma'am" (or sir). Likewise, the journal's own description is somewhat inflated. And relying on a single source to determine notability (from the land down under, or one more upward) might pertain to undue wieght. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 06:17, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe the single source communicates some sort of neutral view but I don't think that translates to inclusion in Wikipedia (notability). This journal isn't even in existence yet, so how can any source give a neutral report describing the journal? I think not having published a single issue makes this a different concern. As I showed earlier there is no flurry of press reports in the main stream media annoucing this "new" journal. And that is the only thing this journal has to rely on for inclusion -- and it hasn't happened. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 06:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition, I don't see why you linked to a particular version of the WP:GNG. I don't think it matters. Somehow the line that was picked miscontrues what the guideline acutally says. It says that a subject must have "signifigant coverage", and that phrase is used nine times throughout the guideline. And "signifigant attention" appears to be used once, but it means the same. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 06:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I linked to the current version so that if it gets modified then people still know what I am referring to. That's the way the phrase "At the time of writing" is usually used. Mistory (talk) 06:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The WP:GNG guideline also gives a definition of what the guideline means by "significant coverage": "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed. The coverage of 'Forum of Mathematics' by 'The Australian' seems to fit that definition. Mistory (talk) 07:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Undue weight"??? Are you just naming policies at random to confuse the issue? Or do you seriously believe there exists a significant viewpoint, documented in reliable sources, that the article fails to give due weight to? Jowa fan (talk) 07:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, passing WP:GNG does not change the fact that as per WP:NOT we don't need product announcements on Wikipedia.  Even when the media gives attention to press releases, there is still no encyclopedic value when all that we can report is the product announcement.  Unscintillating (talk) 09:54, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Going to Category:Mathematics journals and clicking on a few links at random, I find that most Wikipedia pages for mathematics journals contain about the same amount of information as the page for Forum of Mathematics. There seems to be a consensus that a page of this type and length is sufficiently encyclopedic. Jowa fan (talk) 01:19, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:OTHERSTUFF. And it's pointless doing such a search anyway: you can't compare this with similar articles that were deleted for obvious reasons. So to save arguments over 'x exists'/'x was deleted' we instead have policies, such as those referenced above, to guide us.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 02:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Forum_of_Mathematics&oldid=1137855951"