Talk:PhysMath Central

Redirect

Hi, you undid my redirect. However, PhysMath Central really is not notable, see for example WP:NJournals to get an idea for what is necessary for a journal to become notable. PMC could (and should) be mentioned briefly in the article on the European Physical Journal, but a standalone article is not justified. I am not convinced that it published "notable articles", but even if it did, notability is not inherited. I would appreciate if you would undo your revert. --Crusio (talk) 07:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually Crusio, PMC is a (defunct) publisher, not a journal. We usually redirect the non-notable journals to their publisher, so I'd argue that we should keep the article on PMC itself, and redirect the PMC journals here. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 07:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• It's not really a publisher. It's an imprint that was used by Springer only briefly. So at best it should be mentioned in the Springer article and the journal names should redirect to the new journal titles, where the old names can be mentioned. --Crusio (talk) 07:32, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, you are creating unnecessary confusion. The present lemma "PhysMath Central" will be found by anybody who is looking for information about any of the PMC journals. There is no need for separate articles on the three journals, not even in form of a redirect. In contrast, the present article cannot be replaced by a redirect to EPJ, because that would only cover PMC A and PMC B, but not PMC Biophysics. A transfer of the present material to the Springer article might formally be possible, but I do not see any advantage over the present situation. What's so wrong with the present article? -- Marie Poise (talk) 07:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• Problem is, it's not notable. Putting proper redirects in place, people will find what they are looking for just fine. --Crusio (talk) 08:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Notability is not a problem until you make it one. Redirects work only if the contents is moved along. The contents, however, fits much better here than in the Springer article. Easiest solution would be you turn your attention to other articles that are much more in need of action. -- Marie Poise (talk) 08:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
• Thanks so much for your kind advice. You should bring that message to all the AfD discussions that we're having. --Crusio (talk) 08:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:NJournals says: "however, most journals nowadays have home pages which may be used as sources for uncontroversial information. Often, this will be sufficient to create a stub on a particular journal, even in the absence of other sources." Therefore, I will remove the primarysources tag. -- Marie Poise (talk) 13:52, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

As said by Headbomb, this is not a journal and even for a journal the homepage is not enough if something is controversial or contested (as is the case here) -- Crusio, from the article's revision history.

First: "PhysMath Central" is not a journal, but the article "PhysMath Central" also covers three journals. Second: Is there anything contested beyond the notability? Unless there is reason do doubt the contents of the article, there is no need for a primarysources tag. -- Marie Poise (talk) 18:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

This is an article about the imprint, so the journal categories do not belong. They can be added on the redirects themselves. The sourcing isn't really an issue here, however notability is. IMO, it would probably be best to merge PhysMath Central and Chemistry Central with BioMed Central. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• Excellent idea, should have thought of that myself... :-)