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 redirect to Cryptocurrency#Academic_studies. ( non-admin closure) sst ✈ 02:42, 3 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Ledger (journal)

Ledger (journal) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable new journal that has only been announced yet. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." DePRODded by IP with stated reason "Article meets requirements for Notability:Academic journals, because it satisfies criteria #3: it carries an historic purpose, being the first academic journal dedicated to cryptocurrencies", which is incorrect: simply being the first journal addressing a very specialized subject is not an "historic purpose". PROD reason still stands, hence: Delete. Randykitty ( talk) 07:52, 17 September 2015 (UTC) reply

• Do you care to give an example of a journal with an historic purpose then, or do you think that criteria was carved out just for giggles? PaperWario ( talk) 13:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC) reply
• PS: note that the journal hasn't published a single article yet. There's no way of knowing how it will do in future. -- Randykitty ( talk) 08:52, 17 September 2015 (UTC) reply

• This is irrelevant, since the journal meets criteria #3 PaperWario ( talk) 13:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC) reply

• REDIRECT to Cryptocurrency#Academic_studies where it is already mentioned. WP:TOOSOON for its own article. -- 1Wiki8........................... ( talk) 08:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC) reply

• WP:TOOSOON does not apply to academic journals. It applies to biographies, films, and articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaperWario ( talk • contribs) 13:11, 23 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... ( talk) 08:32, 17 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... ( talk) 08:32, 17 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... ( talk) 08:32, 17 September 2015 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to Cryptocurrency per 1Wiki8. -- Rsrikanth05 ( talk) 11:45, 17 September 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep The Notability:Academic Journals criteria specifically carve out an exception for cases exactly like this one.

1. The journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area.
2. The journal is frequently cited by other reliable sources.
3. The journal has an historic purpose or a significant history.

Cryptocurrencies, which seek to replace traditional fiat currencies, are virtually uncovered in the academic world despite their exponentially growing importance in economics, finance, and social policy. An academic journal seeking to encourage multidisciplinary research in a field that sorely needs it has a historic purpose by definition. PaperWario ( talk) 13:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment I just started the Journal of Hedgehog Developmental Biology and will put it online next week. It's the very first journal on the developmental biology of the hedgehog. In fact, I believe it may be the first journal exclusively on hedgehogs! So that's an historic purpose, right? As you may see from this silly example, no, that is not what NJournals#3 is about. A historical purpose implies a history. For example, a journal that was published for an extended period of time in the 18th century and was quite influential, but which will not be included in any current databases/indexes. Ledger has no history at all as yet and fails every criterion of NJournals by a mile. At this point, we even need a well-functioning crystal ball to figure out whether it actually ever will publish a single article, let alone stay in business for any significant amount of time. (That's what WP:TOOSOON is about, if not in letter then in spirit). -- Randykitty ( talk) 13:52, 23 September 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment - If you convince a major research university to publish your hedgehog journal, you might have a shot. But most likely not, since you have difficulty understanding the meaning of the word historic.

his·tor·ic /hiˈstôrik/ adjective 1. famous or important in history, or potentially so.

synonyms: significant, notable, important, momentous, consequential, memorable, newsworthy, unforgettable, remarkable;

Cryptocurrencies make headlines of major newspapers every day, while hedgehogs hardly ever turn heads, even in biology circles. Cryptocurrencies are bringing a societal change that will be the biggest and most dramatic change in finance of the past two or three millennia--replacing fiat money. If a journal dedicated to research of an unstudied field that's spearheading such a dramatic change to civilization does not satisfy the historic carvout in the notability criteria for journals, then no other journal should satisfy it, ever. That criteria was written in for a reason, and this publication meets it to the letter. PaperWario ( talk) 17:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC) reply

• While cryptocurrencies are notable, that does not mean that anything planned about them is also notable. And you can cite dictionaries as much as you like, "historic" is not used here in the sense of "remarkable" and such, just as "notable" has a special meaning here on WP, too. And the notability of the publisher does not mean that any journal they publish is inherently notable, too. And while your predictions of cryptocurrencies' future importance may be correct, that still remains to be seen. -- Randykitty ( talk) 17:34, 23 September 2015 (UTC) reply

• While your deletionist stubbornness is admirable and may be even welcome in some scenarios, your selective acceptance of Wikipedia rules is not. I specifically underlined "or potentially so," meaning "potentially important in history," which you conveniently ignored. You also failed to give so much as a single example of a journal that would fall under the third Wikipedia criteria under Notability: Academic Journals, obviously because you understand fully that the third definition is exactly on point in this case. A journal dedicated to finally opening the field of cryptocurrencies to academic research with the goal of changing the very definition of money--one of society's building blocks--has a historic purpose by any definition in the book, including the main, dictionary definition, which I cited above.

• It's clear we disagree about this and my ignorance has been adequately exposed, so let's give it a rest and see what other editors think. -- Randykitty ( talk) 06:09, 24 September 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment - Although the journals policy of encouraging authors to digitally sign hashes of papers, timestamping that into the blockchain, and for authors to identify via a bitcoin address [1] is most interesting. Dunno about historical though. -- 1Wiki8........................... ( talk)

• Just being original is not enough to be notable (even less historic...) -- Randykitty ( talk) 14:41, 23 September 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete as per nom. No basis for notability on the search engines. Fails WP:NJournals, see #10 and #11 in the Notes and Examples area, which we are told to look at before applying one of the 3 criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:12, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
• Redirect per 1Wiki8. I don't think it makes sense to say that a journal can be determined to have a historic purpose prospectively. Historic purposes need to be judged from a historical perspective. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:31, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Deletionists should feel ashamed for having the nerve to nominate this for deletion. It passes both journal notability (per the historic purpose exception) and general notability guidelines. Even Nature, the world's most cited scientific journal (impact factor = 42.4) [ http://i.imgur.com/0pzk9CC.png has covered] the launch of this journal a mere two weeks after its announcement. It is utterly ludicrous that outright spam articles and blatant advertisements are prevented from being deleted from Wikipedia, yet an article about a monumentally important (i.e. historic, get it?) academic journal is fought so hard to delete. PaperWario ( talk) 00:42, 1 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment Nature did not cover the launch of Ledger, it mentioned it in passing in a (brief) article about cryptocurrencies (I give the correct link here and have struck the link you provide: please do not link to copyvios). I also gingerly suggest that it is a bit early to say that thus is a "monumentally important" journal. At this point, we can't even say for sure whether cryptocurrencies will ever become more than a peculiar Internet thing, so let alone that we can say whether a journal that hasn't even published anything will ever become notable (or even will survive its first difficult years). Oh, and no, I'm not ashamed of nominating a non-notable journal for deletion. Feel free to nominate for deletion any of the "spam articles and blatant advertisements" that you mention yourself. Thanks. -- Randykitty ( talk) 08:17, 1 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment Call it "mentioning" or whatever you like, but it more than qualifies as legitimate coverage. You are continuing to show that you are either biased or have a poor understanding of what's going on on Wall Street if you think cryptocurrencies are a "peculiar Internet thing." As we speak, the world's biggest banks are forming a coalition to employ blockchains based on the Bitcoin model. Cryptocurrencies already have a tangible effect on the economies of the U.S. and China, and are of paramount importance in regimes where local currencies have collapsed, such as Zimbabwe and most recently Russia. Please stick to hedgehog journals, if that's where your expertise lies, and stop interfering with the dissemination of knowledge that is transforming people's lives. And yes, I tried nominating garbage articles for deletion before. Most of the time it's a waste of energy, because your efforts are countered by people who post bogus information just to avoid a consensus from being reached. I am just shocked that the patrolling process is broken both ways. People with questionable goals fight just as hard to stop legitimate articles from being created as they do to keep garbage articles intact. PaperWario ( talk) 16:06, 1 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• So nice to meet someone who knows how to assume good faith. And an in-passing mention does nothing to establish notability, sorry. If a description of the establishment of this journal is "knowledge that is transforming people's lives", then there must be tons of sources to cover this monumental event. If there are no such sources, then perhaps things are less monumental than you think. Anyway, it's clear that we do not agree (and it looks like nobody else here does either), so there's not much use in continuing this discussion. Let's see what the closing admin thinks about this. -- Randykitty ( talk) 16:15, 1 October 2015 (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.