This article is within the scope of WikiProject Academic Journals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Academic Journals on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Academic JournalsWikipedia:WikiProject Academic JournalsTemplate:WikiProject Academic JournalsAcademic Journal articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cryptography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cryptography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CryptographyWikipedia:WikiProject CryptographyTemplate:WikiProject CryptographyCryptography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cryptocurrency, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cryptocurrency on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CryptocurrencyWikipedia:WikiProject CryptocurrencyTemplate:WikiProject CryptocurrencyWikiProject Cryptocurrency articles
Given that the redirect was the result of an AfD, that's quite a bold move. I can see only one reference that was not already in the article that underwent AfD (not counting WorldCat and references to the journal itself). Creating an article on this still seems way too soon and the fact that they finally managed to publish an issue containing just ten (10) articles does not bode well for its staying power. --Randykitty (talk) 15:27, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Randykitty: given Ledger is the main (i.e. significant) subject of multiple articles in reliable online sources it meets WP:GNG. As far as I can see the guidance on WP:NJOURNALS is a specific interpretation of the WP:GNG rules for journals, a topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets either the subject specific guidelines or general notability guideline, thus it makes little sense that the stringency for notability for journals to be greater then that outlined in WP:GNG. Your point that there have only been 10 articles published thus somehow the future of the publication is dim is faulty logic and unsubstantiated speculation. Phys. Rev. published 5 articles in its first issue. It could equally mean the peer-review process is rigorous therefore only 10 submissions made the cut: The credentials of the editorial board, which itself is the main subject of one of the secondary sources, would indicate they are looking for high quality papers. The WP:TOOSOON guidance outlines a case of a movie star:
"A good example of this is Paris Jackson, as seen at this Articles for Deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paris Katherine Jackson. At the time of the discussion, she had been announced as the star of a film that would be released a year after – however, the film had not actually been released yet. If or when the film is released, and if Jackson is the star of the film, she likely will merit an article, but not until then."
Clearly the analogous situation here to the film being released is when the journal actually publishes some articles, which has now happened. As currently stands, the article Ledger is much better referenced and sourced then hundreds of start class articles and stubs in the journals section - so why single out this article? --Sparkyscience (talk) 13:37, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Phys Rev and similar: yep and we waited decades before creating an article. After its first issue, there was no way to tell whether this would be come notable. NJournals: indeed, this journal is very far from meeting NJournals, but that is irrelevant if it meets GNG. However, I don't think this meets GNG either, as it is not the subject of multiple articles in reliable sources but gets mentioned in passing in such sources and is the subject of some press releases and blog posts. That the journal has been released has absolutely nothing to do with notability either. Notice that in your comment above you cite TOOSOON as saying that "If or when the film is released, and if Jackson is the star of the film, she likely will merit an article, but not until then." The operational term here is likely, because we assume that somebody starring in even a moderately-successful movie will likely be covered in-depth in multiple reliable sources. Nevertheless, even when the release of the film, it still needs to be shown that there are sources discussing Jackson. As for why singling this out, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and the fact that this actually went through AfD not that long ago. --Randykitty (talk) 15:16, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Motherboard and CoinDesk are neither blogs nor do they publish press releases. The significant (i.e. main subject matter) articles on Ledger from these publications were created by professional journalists working for their respective companies. Both have editorial oversight and a means of submitting corrections. How do they not constitute WP:RS for the subject matter in question? --Sparkyscience (talk) 16:17, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Randykitty: I removed the notability tag you added to the article after I added a couple more sources. I am not sure if hackernoon I added is an RS or not. Still not wonderful sourcing, but as it is a peer reviewed nonprofit university publication (bleeding some notability from University of Pittsburg) I guess it is sufficient. If you disagree, please feel free to add the tag. But it does seem to have been mentioned in at least the Pittsburg press, which I suppose is not surprising. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:06, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hackernoon isn't an RS, it's a group blog. GeekWire doesn't appear to be an RS. The other two are internal magazines from the university that Ledger is based at, so that'll be why they're covering it. The Nature source is a passing mention, the other two are launch publicity. I think its notability under WP:GNG is questionable.
I do not think that this journal should be measured in the same (meaning identical) that we might measure a new academic journal with the reason being is that it has no peers. Maybe the only RS we see today that do indepth work are FT, WSJ, Bloomberg, CNBC, and Wired. Wired is normally the only one that is truly in depth, with the financial papers mostly doing commercial issues (pricing, the token goes up or down more or less).
Next, its pretty hard to rise above the noise in this space. I did this search [1] as I was having trouble searching in google news. Agree, maybe university of pittsburg thinking it is notable isn't surprising. However, see the wired source [2] that goes into what we were seeing over at the IOTA draft, which editors posting a dozen or more dubious academic sources. Thus in this case we do see Wired going into detail about Ledger Journal and the industry sourcing issues we face here at wikipedia. Its far from a passing mention and probably all we could hope to see at this point in time as the commercial sources wont be interested and few besides wired are covering the other side. We might google the others, maybe techcrunch might also do something. Any other thoughts of who we might google for coverage (due to the noise issue, you can't really just google 'ledger')? Here this book cites ledger (as well as the kitchen sink) [3] and Stanford cites it in some limited news [4] alongside HBR of note. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:07, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
