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.
Changing my vote to Dabify or Weak Keep per Mathsci's findings although I hope he'll put refs in the article. I peeked through both Timb66 and the noms' contribs. I think Timb66 can be trusted as someone who knows what he's doing and the nom might have a possible COI.--Lenticel(talk)23:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or replace by a disambiguation page briefly describing the mainstream journal Reports on Progress in Physics, with a wikilink, and this "alternative journal" in one short sentence, with no wikilinked article. WP is not about censorship and User:Charles T. Le has only just started editing with this account. The article made it quite clear that the journal was devoted to pseudoscience. Mathsci (talk) 08:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC) Refactored: like Timb66, I also helped a little in making this article accurate and that could be helpful. Mathsci (talk) 11:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC) In addition User:Charles T. Le seems to share the same name as a former collaborator of Florentin Smarandache, one of the editors of this journal, see [3]. WP:COI perhaps? Mathsci (talk) 12:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retain I am a practising physicist (and not one who would ever publish in this journal, which is clearly on the fringe). I helped edit the article and am happy that it no longer reflects the bias of those associated with the journal. It is useful to have, since physicists (and others) will occasionally stumble across articles from PiP and will want to know about it. Timb66 (talk) 10:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—I'm having trouble supporting keeping this page because of the lack of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Most of the ghits come from the "Reports on Progress in Physics". There are a few mentions in blogs, but those don't seem to meet the criteria.—RJH (talk) 16:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
27 different articles are cited in Mathematical Reviews, the official reviewing body of the American Mathematical Society, where the journal has been recognized. The journal even has a page there (normally only accessible through a university account). This does not guarantee the quality of articles (often highly questionable), but is one of a very few acceptable academic criteria for recognition (internet gossip or hot air are not reliable sources). Mathsci (talk) 17:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MR1443297 Charles T. Le, The most paradoxist mathematician of the world "Florentin Smarandache". Bull. Pure Appl. Sci. Sect. E Math. Stat. 15 (1996), 81-96. From the summary: "Florentin Smarandache (b. 1954), a Romanian mathematician and poet, exiled in the USA, used his talents in wrong directions: poetical skills in mathematics and mathematical skills in poetry."
Charles T. Le, The most paradoxist mathematician of the world "Florentin Smarandache", History of Science Press, Los Angeles, 1995, 54 pages, ISBN1-829585-52-9 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum (vanity publication). Review on jstor by Tony Gardiner from Mathematical Gazette: "The rest of this pamphlet is devoted to a tasteless and unstructured advertisement of this 40 year old's uninspiring life, ..."
MR2052875 Florentin Smarandache, A unifying field in logics: neutrosophic logic, neutrosophy, neutrosophic set, neutrosophic probability. Third edition. With a preface by Charles T. Le. American Research Press, Rehoboth, NM, 2003. 143 pp. ISBN1-879585-76-6
Listen to the experts and keep. In this field, having been listed/reviewed in Mathematical Reviews and (according to the journal's home page) in Zentralblatt MATH and Referativny Zhurnal is certainly evidence of notability. Question about possible hidden motives of the nominator aside, one might share the doubts which he expressed above about the scientific quality of the journal, but personal judgements like these are not a reason for deletion. Actually, I think that the (afaik) unique stance which the journal takes against the established mechanism of quality control in the scientific community also makes it interesting and notable in itself. Regards, High on a tree (talk) 02:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the nature of the publication is clear & its notable enough. (I note that Math Rev reviews everything published bearing on mathematics, so that alone is no guarantee of quality, merely for it being a scientific journal in mathematics. )DGG (talk) 11:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can't comment on whether or not the journal publishes pseudoscience, as I'm in a different field, but my sense is that the potential danger represented by possible pseudoscience confers notability on the topic. The article doesn't seem to get at the issues involved, but this can be remedied. In psychology, a journal called Psychological Reports is considered a cash-for-publication venue. This journal might be a non-notable topic if no one had an opinion on it, but I think its disrepute in the field confers notability. The same could be said of Progress in Physics. Valerius (talk) 05:37, 15 December 2007 (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.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Progress in Physics
