Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frontiers in... journal series

Frontiers in... journal series

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

This page in Wikipedia is just serving as a proxy for the company website; the only source for this list is the company website. Fails WP:LISTN as well as WP:PROMO, which says "...All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources.... Wikipedia articles about a company or organization are not an extension of their website...." This page grew out of a discussion here about whether this list belongs in the main Frontiers Media article; I and others have said it doesn't belong there. It doesn't cut it as a standalone article either. Jytdog (talk) 17:44, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is clearly a WP:ABF nomination, not even giving time for the article to be built. This article is most certainly not a 'proxy for the website'. While Jytdog and others did indeed said it didn't belong in Frontiers Media, many others said that it did, or that an article on the series would be an acceptable alternative. In any cases, this is a notable series of journals, which easily meets WP:GNG, and should be kept. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:48, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Worthwhile information to have about a notable (but not in a good way) publisher. Since it disambiguates between Frontiers Media journals and those with similar names from other publishers, it provides more value than the company's own catalogue does. XOR'easter (talk) 17:55, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neither !vote above addresses the reasons for the nomination. If you want to IAR that is fine of course but please be explicit about that, and acknowledge that this an extension of the company website (the only source for the complete list is the company's website) so fails PROMO and fails LISTN (what independent sources talk about all the journals, distinct from the publisher which already has an article?). Jytdog (talk) 18:00, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is not an extension of the website, and never will be, nor is is in violation of WP:PROMO or WP:LISTN. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:02, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This diff for example just pads this page, with content about the publisher. We already have an article on the publisher and N is not inherited. Jytdog (talk) 18:03, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, both the series and the publisher are intertwined and inherit each other's notability, and the series also inherits its constituents' notability. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:22, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I think that in this case, notability is inherited. The publisher is notable, what the publisher does is publish journals, and so the "group or set" of journals is, jointly, notable. Given that the original article rather thoroughly documents the controversies surrounding the publisher, listing their journals is hardly an advertisement. (In fact, having a separate page for the list is suboptimal from this point of view.) XOR'easter (talk) 18:24, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again you can IAR I reckon but please be explicit that this is your argument. I am not going to keep replying here, so as not to clutter the discussion. So bye for now. Jytdog (talk) 18:26, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I prefer the list in the publisher article myself, but Jytdog (among others) opposed that. Shows there's just no pleasing some people. I can live with with a merge back to the publisher, or a standalone list, but the content is relevant and should exist somewhere on Wikipedia. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:28, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying it's a fork to get around consensus? --Calton | Talk 02:32, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not really no. It's a possible solution that may make more people happy than the old one. I'm entirely fine merging this back at Frontiers Media like it was, but some folks are just categorically against this content in whatever form it is, regardless of reasons. You'll never be able to please those. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:45, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, yes, it's a pointless fork to get around consensus. --Calton | Talk 07:27, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, no, it's exactly not that. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:55, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 18:31, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 18:31, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep an appropriate list article. Many of these will not warrant an article themselves, and so should just appear in a list like this. It is probably excessive to merge with Frontiers Media. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:38, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Frontiers series is beloved of cranks ad charlatans but has no significant scientific reputation. This listrcruft exists solely because it was WP:UNDUE in the main article. WP:LAUNDRY applies. Guy (Help!) 00:07, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That it is beloved by cranks and charlatan is one further reason to keep the article. Regardless of your personal opinion about the reputation of these journals, the fact remain that Frontiers journals are have high visibility, and relatively high impact. You wouldn't catch me dead publishing in them, and I'd seriously question any research that was referenced to Frontiers, but we deal with the world as it is, not as we wish it to be. And given the extent that Frontiers journals are cited on Wikipedia (see #78) ... we badly need this article. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:12, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is worth commenting on. I totally get it, that some people think it is important for WP to be a sort of card-catalog for journals -- that there be this library-like function in mainspace. But Wikipedia is not a catalog. Wikidata could definitely serve that purpose; it is within its mission to gather up all data. If folks want something text-based, I wonder if there should be something like a "WikiCardCatalog" project where people who want to do this, can do it. But WP mainspace is not a place for cataloging.....Jytdog (talk) 03:32, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article is nowhere near a catalogue entry. As for sources which discuss the journal series as a whole, you'll find this to meet exactly that criterion. An analysis of predatory publishing with and without Frontiers journals.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:26, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That it is beloved by cranks and charlatan is one further reason to keep the article. That rationale has nothing to do with this list, and is a rebuttal to an argument not even being made.

The article is nowhere near a catalogue entry. Based on what? It's (almost) literally just a list of titles, with no notes, no explanations, no links, no details, and no organizing principle other than the alphabetical. If readers want a company catalog, it's not Wikipedia's job to provide that, it's the company's. --Calton | Talk 07:27, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the article. Did you even read it? There's plenty of analysis, history, commentary, sourcing. It goes well beyond a simple listing (which would be completely fine to have on its own, btw), and easily passes WP:GNG. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:55, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Headbomb pretty much explicitly states above that this pointless list was created to dodge its inclusion in the main article. --Calton | Talk 02:32, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly what I do not state. My prefered solution is to include this in the article. This is a compromise version. This is not an attempt to 'dodge inclusion', this is an attempt to maximize satisfaction.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:46, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note, with the recent expansions, my preferred solution is now a standalone article. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:58, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There wasn't yet a consensus to get around. I'd prefer to keep everything in one article; a separate list page was a not-great but not-bad-sounding alternative. Failing that, I think the sources turned up in the course of building this page (e.g., footnotes 11–17) should be incorporated into the main Frontiers Media article. Generally, I just think that when I look up a publisher in a reference work, one thing I'd like to be able to find is what they publish. XOR'easter (talk) 05:25, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is exactly what I do not state. Nope, that's the only reasonable interpretation of what you wrote. If you want this -- frankly -- pointless list, get consensus to include it in the actual article. If you can't get, well, too bad, people will just have to go to the company website. --Calton | Talk 07:27, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@XOR'easter: Luckily, for those who want to find out what Frontiers Media publishes, they maintain this website. It is a clear pass of the criteria at WP:EL, and should be included as an external link on the Frontiers Media page. It is also the only actual source for the content of this list, so exactly 0 encyclopedic value is lost by chucking the list for the link. (And if any individual journals are notable, there can be a reasonable-size subsection called "Notable journals" or something.) --JBL (talk) 13:04, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It might be the only static source for the full content of the list itself (the only other sources I could find were partial, e.g., [1], or directory search results), but other references discuss the collection as a unit. And, as I mentioned in the original discussion, having a list of our own means that we can indicate if a journal changes its name, ceases publication, etc. This is the kind of information that, in my experience, is difficult to find from a publisher's catalogue because it gets buried or elided and has to be sourced from elsewhere. XOR'easter (talk) 14:21, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We can only do that if there are reliable sources that allow us to do that by writing about it. And if an individual journal has reliable sources writing about it, then it is independently notable and can have its own article. --JBL (talk) 15:09, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We have plenty of reliable sources writing about the journal series. It easily passes WP:GNG. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:14, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If an individual journal is only covered in one or two niche-but-reliable sources (as is the case for several in the list here, I've found), then I'm sure an article on that individual journal would be brought to AfD, and I bet a common sentiment would be to merge and redirect it to the article on the publisher, and we'd be right back where we started. XOR'easter (talk) 15:24, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is now just a fork of Frontiers Media. The encyclopedic content belongs in that article (and that's what all the substantive references are about). The list of journals is not encyclopedic content and doesn't belong on Wikipedia (but would make a fine external link). --JBL (talk) 12:50, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge with Frontiers Media. This AfD nomination was made within 20 minutes of the article's creation while it was actively under construction, which to me does not assume good faith, and is fairly malicious. I know there's no rule on how soon an article can be nominated, but I'm tired of running into AfDs which were nominated while obviously still under construction. Just assume good faith people! I know there are draft forms and sandboxes for this, so the article's creator is more at fault, but in any case nominators should be able to tell when a page is under construction and should practice patience before getting a quick AfD stat. Ok, off my soapbox.. In its current state the article is well-written and well sourced with reliable and verifiable references. Since the AfD nomination the page has been completely overhauled and has a lot of material that is specific to the Frontier Journals that warrants a nice spinout article from the main page. My recommendation would be to change the name to "Frontiers journal series" as it is on the Frontiers Media page as that's how more people would likely search for it, but as it stands right now the page meets WP:GNG and should be kept. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 17:39, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Frontiers journal series redirects to the article btw, as do a few other aliases. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:52, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the sake of clarity, the above isn't a criticism of jytdog, who is an exceptional editor, it's more of my frustration in the current AfD policies. Just preemptively stating this as the above was not to be inflammatory! :) SEMMENDINGER (talk) 17:45, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Semmendinger thanks for your kind note. The additional content is padding and is about the publisher; this was entirely predictable. The creator is focused on getting the full list of Frontiers journals somewhere in Wikipedia under the (in my view) mistaken notion that WP should be a catalog for journals. That is what this is about, at base - they created this only after getting resistance to including the list in the publisher article. The list of Frontiers journals is not notable; the publisher is. Jytdog (talk) 22:57, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: We have a discussion to merge the list in a article and this only done to remove the list without clear discussion. For now, speedy keep it until there are clear discussion to remove it. 176.27.175.9 (talk) 18:34, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The debate surrounding this journal series was very relevant for the open access and peer review developments and quite distinct from the specifics of the publisher, so it makes sense to develop a separate article. --Nemo 19:16, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is about the company and its methods, not the names of the specific journals in the series, which is all that this page is meant to provide. The content about the controversy is offtopic and padding here. Jytdog (talk) 19:25, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The list of journals is one of the things that's important about the series, but it's not the only thing. This is not "padding", and this goes well beyond the activities of the publisher, although the two are obviously linked. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:46, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are only notable lists. Someone put it up to deletion to remove the journal list without clear discussion. 2A02:C7F:963F:BA00:B058:29BA:584A:4F8D (talk) 21:01, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If this article is going to be made into a substantive, encyclopedic article, separate from Frontiers Media (which sounds like a silly fork to me but otherwise is not objectionable) it is still the case that the list of journals in the article is unnecessary and should be replaced with an external like to the publisher's webpage, which is the only place it is ever going to be sourced from, anyhow. --JBL (talk) 21:42, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you make an article about a series of something, telling what people what is in the series of something is rather important. that's like saying the Forbes Celebrity 100 shouldn't say who the 100 are, because it's sourced through the Forbes Celebrity 100 official list. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:51, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article Forbes Celebrity 100 does not, in fact, list the 100 in question. --JBL (talk) 22:01, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Also, of course, there is coverage of that list qua list. Which is not the case here. Which is the point.) --JBL (talk) 22:02, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's plenty of coverage of the Frontiers series, if you don't like the Forbes Celebrity 100 example, then Alpha Phi Omega/List of Alpha Phi Omega chapters. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:10, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, I like the example very very much: it shows that your vehemently repeated argument that it is absolutely and obviously necessary to include the list is entirely mistaken. It is a shame that you don't understand this; but I am not an evangelist, I do not need to convert you, I just want to get this piece of junk out of Wikipedia where it does not belong. (Of course, the fact that you have been so personally unpleasant makes me more committed to this goal than I would be under other circumstances.) --JBL (talk) 23:38, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]