Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neuropsychoeconomics

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 of the debate was delete --Ezeu 16:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neuropsychoeconomics

Non-notable journal, only one issue has appeared up to now -- Koffieyahoo 01:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I think it's notable since it's peer-reviewed and has a respectable editorial board and is published by a learned society. TruthbringerToronto 01:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Question So even if only the current issue would ever appear it is still a notable journal for these reasons? Personally, I doubt this less if another one or two issues would appear. -- Koffieyahoo 01:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. As TruthbringerToronto said, peer-reviewed journals are notable. However, this article is in need of some cleanup and more content. RedRollerskate 01:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Academic journals are not automatically notable. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, at which point do peer reviewed scholarly journals become notable, if not after publication of an issue? Needs more content though. Reconsider after translation of website below, sounds suspiciously unacademic to me. Neutral. Rockpocket 06:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment It's not unacademic, it's just a fairly new field with few practitioners. And as such it can take off or fizzle out. ~ trialsanderrors 18:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like something we can't cover per policy. Just zis Guy you know? 21:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete without prejudice against recreation when it becomes more established. I would say that all journals are notable... once they get going. One issue (and only hardcopy?) is not quite enough. The journal is not published by any known publisher, a category in which I would include online-only open-access journals; this could just be a web page which never gets updated again. (The people listed in the journal table of contents do appear to be real, however.) I am also somewhat put off by the fact that the author of this article appears to have created this article and Martin Reimann, who is the journal's editor (and which was only fleshed out after I tagged it {importance}), and has not been back since: it smells like WP:VAIN. bikeable (talk) 05:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless there are third party sources. Like everything else, journals establish WP:N (and WP:V) by being noted. In due time, if this goes anywhere, some of its articles and authors will make the news. ~ trialsanderrors 05:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Very weak delete. Peer-reviewed journals are indeed notable, but the article currently appears to fail WP:VAIN. Remove the vanity and source the article and it can stay. --Coredesat 06:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It would be helpful to get someone who speaks German to go over the site and provide a summary for the rest of us, so we can better evaluate its notability with reference to German academia. Until we have more information, I don't believe that we should delete it- especially the huge boost in notability that being peer-reviewed brings. Captainktainer * Talk 06:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I did. It's not my field so I can't speak of the authors, but it mentions that it's a young field (with potential) so "rough" results should be expected. So I'll add WP:NOT a crystal ball to the other criteria listed. No prejudice, but this should be recreated in two to three years by someone unaffiliated with the publishers. ~ trialsanderrors 06:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Rough translation. Feel free to edit: Da die Anwendung neurowissenschaftlicher Methoden in der Ökonomie ein noch relativ junges Feld darstellt, werden derzeit zum Teil noch recht grobe Ergebnisse erzielt. Nichtsdestotrotz besteht berechtigter Grund zur Annahme, dass die Wirtschaftswissenschaften zukünftig gravierend durch Erkenntnisse aus Neurowissenschaften und Psychologie beeinflusst werden. -- As the application of neuroscientific methods in economics is still a comparatively young field, some of the current results will be quite rough. Neverthless there are justified reasons to believe that in the future economic sciences will be significantly influenced by findings from neurosciences and psychology." ~ trialsanderrors 06:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete per Bikable. One issue looks to early. Possibility of vanity information also bothers me. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 06:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Robertsteadman 09:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but delete the list of people and add more content —Mets501 (talk) 13:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn and article fails to give reason for notability. One issue of a peer-reviewed journal is not a good notability criterion. Peer review does not add to notability, although it has impact with relation to other policies e.g. WP:NOR, adn WP:V. --Wisden17 13:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete As Wisden said, they've only put out one issue. As for the translation of from the front page, I think that falls under Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The field needs time to mature and expand in order to produce thoroughly scientific research. Teke 15:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for now, but when the first realy important article is published in it, recreate. Batmanand | Talk 15:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Batmanand. Sophy's Duckling 23:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as lacking any evidence of significance. Lukas_Semion (talk · contribs) has contributed to only two articles, this and a related academic. Leaving aside for the moment the fact that the journal title implies groups of pretentious people exchanging implausible waffle, the first issue of a journal is rarely sufficient to establish significance. Let's wait and see who publishes in it, and whether it becomes genuinely respected or if it's just another small-circulation mag for like-minded people to publish each other's thoughts. Just zis Guy you know? 11:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. One issue of this journal is not enough to establish much of any notability yet, and the field of research seems suspiciously odd to me. Let's wait until this becomes an well-established journal, rather than a one-hit wonder or, perhaps, ultimately relegated to a minor vanity publication. Grandmasterka 07:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - not-notable yet and unsourced statements. BlueValour 20:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nonnotable. Peer review does NOT guarantee notability. Wikipedia is not a science journal index. Bwithh 02:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn Computerjoe's talk 09:43, 25 June 2006 (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.