Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Rutherford Journal
First, as has been pointed out, this journal has, itself, been the subject of an academic review (Review of the journal in Historical Records of Australian Science: Jenkin, John, review of Copeland, Jack, ed., The Rutherford Journal: the New Zealand Journal for the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology (2005), Historical Records of Australian Science, vol. 17, no. 2, 2006, pp. 298-299. http://www.publish.csiro.au/hr/pdf/HR06009) (note: The review is middling, saying: "Overall a very creditable beginning; and it is a pleasure to see a new journal in this broad field, especially one from south of the equator.') If there were two such reviews, I think the subject would clearly pass GNG. With just one, it isn't so clear. Second, as has been pointed out, articles in the journal have been widely cited. However, a review of those citations, most (all?) seem to be citations in passing and paired with citations to other articles in other journals. If some of those citations suggested the journal was publishing more influential articles, I think the subject would be more clearly generally or historically important (I would invoke the spirit of  or something similar). In my opinion, then, the article doesn't obviously pass or fail GNG. Given that, while the subject is slightly outside of my expertise, I trust the opinion of Jpbowen that the subject of the article is suitable for inclusion and tend to agree based on my own assessment
— User:Smmurphy, 18:15, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:TBK (Wikipedia:Notability)