Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neuroquantology
Source: 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. (
]Neuroquantology
This is a personal web page masquerading as a journal. No independent coverage to establish notability. I'm certain I've seen this article before, but can't find a previous AfD. Looie496 (talk) 01:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: As noted on their website, Web of Science does in fact index their journal. The journal is cited by Physical Review E [1], Physical Review D [2]; Int J Neurosci in "Unertan Syndrome: A New Variant of Unertan Syndrome: Running on All Fours in Two Upright-Walking Children", and "Effect of Prenatal Exposure to Mobile Phone on Pyramidal Cell Numbers in the Mouse Hippocampus: A Stereological Study"; Int. J. Theor. Phys. in "[3]"; Q. J. Exp. Psychol. [4]; Cognitive Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience; and about a dozen or more other journals. I'm not positive if this is enough coverage for an academic journal, but it seems sufficient to me. If anyone wants a copy of one of the above-mentioned articles (or wants me to find some more citations) let me know. --Odie5533 (talk) 02:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, how should this source be interpreted? Abductive (reasoning) 02:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't trust New Scientist on anything. If you read the bottom of the article, it says "We contacted Brian Josephson, a Nobel laureate physicist who is on the editorial board of Neuroquantology. 'This looks distinctly flaky to me,' Josephson commented." They have a Nobel laureate on their editorial board. I think that counts for something. --Odie5533 (talk) 03:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Your reply, and the source, could be read any number of different ways. Abductive (reasoning) 03:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Eh? --Odie5533 (talk) 03:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it is mentioned in a reliable source, New Scientist, which you call untrustworthy, even though in this article it is calling Neuroquantology untrustworthy. A Nobel laureate is on their editorial board, calling an article in his own journal "flaky". You said that should count for something, but what? Didn't you just say we couldn't trust New Scientist, so maybe they mis-indentified or mis-quoted him? Also, notability is not inherited, but maybe in this case it should be? Abductive (reasoning) 07:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- He seems to be correctly identified and as far as I can tell is on the editorial team. The article seemed to poke more at the research itself, and publishing the editorial team member's comment noting the research as perhaps "flaky" reinforces the focus of their critique. I think NeuroQuantology is notable, though perhaps not reliable. I see the same for New Scientist, but even though it is not reliable (in my opinion), certain basic things can be relied up such as interviews, per ]
- You hit upon the funny that I was trying to make; anything that is the topic of an article in a reliable source is notable, whether they are calling it reliable or esurient or vociferous or leptokurtic or any adjective. But in this case, the nominator is saying that because it is an unreliable journal, it should be deleted, even though by that standard we shouldn't have an article on the Tacoma Narrows Bridge since it was unreliable. Even funnier, the New Scientist article is not about Neuroquantology, it is about the purported mechanism of poltergeist activity reported in Neuroquantology, and so must be given little weight towards establishing notability for Neuroquantology. Abductive (reasoning) 08:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- He seems to be correctly identified and as far as I can tell is on the editorial team. The article seemed to poke more at the research itself, and publishing the editorial team member's comment noting the research as perhaps "flaky" reinforces the focus of their critique. I think NeuroQuantology is notable, though perhaps not reliable. I see the same for New Scientist, but even though it is not reliable (in my opinion), certain basic things can be relied up such as interviews, per ]
- Well, it is mentioned in a reliable source, New Scientist, which you call untrustworthy, even though in this article it is calling Neuroquantology untrustworthy. A Nobel laureate is on their editorial board, calling an article in his own journal "flaky". You said that should count for something, but what? Didn't you just say we couldn't trust New Scientist, so maybe they mis-indentified or mis-quoted him? Also, notability is not inherited, but maybe in this case it should be? Abductive (reasoning) 07:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Eh? --Odie5533 (talk) 03:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Your reply, and the source, could be read any number of different ways. Abductive (reasoning) 03:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep since ISI indexes it, and so does Scopus, (as confirmed not just by their website, but by Ulrich's) they're notable. Those two are both very selective indexing services. Both of them cover a very few journals which might be considered in the borderline fringe category. and it seems like this might be one of them. Something is not the less notable because it's fringy. DGG ( talk ) 05:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I wish the nominator to realize that getting cited by ISI and Scopus is an achievement for a journal (there are serious reviews behind those processes), which automatically makes it notable. Materialscientist (talk) 10:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- After 3 keep votes, still, no source has been provided that can be used to remedy the nominator's actual concern: that the current article reads like the journal's home page. Handwaiving about "achievement" and "selectivity" is not really on point. If this journal is well-respected, then, sure, the articles that it publishes can be used as reliable sources in constructing npov Wikipedia articles about neuroscience or quantum physics. But to construct an npov article about this journal, we need sources that are about this journal, as Abductive suggests. And being indexed in ISI and Scopus doesn't cut it, because Wikipedia is not a directory. 160.39.213.97 (talk) 21:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment IP makes a very good point that I overlooked. I am not sure the nominator was really hitting at it, but it is a point that should be made. Is there enough material to construct an article on the journal NeuroQuantology? I think the answer to that is no, there isn't enough secondary information on the journal itself. I am not really sure how to address this problem. If we accept that the journal is notable, we also need to know that there is enough information out there to create an article about it. Having other journals cite work published in NeuroQuantology is not really enough; we need secondary reliable sources about the journal itself. --Odie5533 (talk) 19:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It should be a very short article, then - NeuroQuantology describes itself as a journal ... is listed by ISI and Scopus. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment IP makes a very good point that I overlooked. I am not sure the nominator was really hitting at it, but it is a point that should be made. Is there enough material to construct an article on the journal NeuroQuantology? I think the answer to that is no, there isn't enough secondary information on the journal itself. I am not really sure how to address this problem. If we accept that the journal is notable, we also need to know that there is enough information out there to create an article about it. Having other journals cite work published in NeuroQuantology is not really enough; we need secondary reliable sources about the journal itself. --Odie5533 (talk) 19:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per DGG. Even ]
- P.S. The nominator's concerns can be resolved through the ordinary editing process. Bearian (talk) 15:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? Without any independent sources? 160.39.213.97 (talk) 20:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per DGG and Materialscientist. We need to be very very careful given the paucity of independent sources, but the listings are sufficient to establish ]
- 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.