I have undone deletions of two sections. These deletions were justified with reference to the category "undue." "Undue" material gives "minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects," according to Wikipedia's own definition. But we are not dealing with minority views in the case of quotations from an editor who describes the content of a journal he or she is responsible for. The deleting editor also describes the material in question as "puffery." This is not a category that Wikipedia uses, as far as I am aware.
When I created this entry, I tried to make it into more than a stump. Quoting from the journal itself to illustrate its content seemed a good way to accomplish this. It is not clear to me how Wikipedia users are helped if entries are reduced to a bare minimum for reasons that appear either inappropriate ("undue") or idiosyncratic ("puffery"). Wissembourg (talk) 12:30, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
- Reverted, these sections are pure puffery and do not belong. I've brought back the article to be more in line with our writing guide at WP:JWG. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:37, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
- Actually I can't find any evidence of notability, so I've nominated the article for deletion. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:51, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
- An editor accidentally restored the orphan tag. It seems to me that this ought to be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wissembourg (talk • contribs) 12:02, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
