Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Communications & Strategies

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter (talk) 16:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Communications & Strategies

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

Contested prod. Scientific journal with no assertion of notability, all references merely point to websites hosting the journal's contents. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 14:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Neutral~~Keep Horrendous article... I have cleaned it up drastically by removing the long lists of names and adding some missing info. The previous text was a word-by-word copyvio of the journal's homepage (now linked as an external link). I have not checked the assertions that they are included in the databases listed. These are not all "hosting" sites, but most are academic databases. I am not sure, however, in how far these databases are selective and major, both requirements to fulfill WP:NJournals. Perhaps somebody who knows this field better can tell us this. --Crusio (talk) 16:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC) Change to "keep" per DGG. --Crusio (talk) 18:16, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. The fact that their articles are indexed in databases isn't a claim of notability. It's like saying a book is in the card catalog of the Library of Congress. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the same thing. The Library of Congress' catalog, although in itself a "major database", is not selective, and therefore does not meet WP:NJournals. Other databases, such as the Science Citation Index and MEDLINE, for example, are very selective about which journals they include and inclusion in one of those is generally accepted as sufficient evidence of notability. If the journal is in the listed databases and if those are selective databases, then that would be good evidence for notability. Just as we would speedily keep an article on an actor who won an Oscar, even if that would be the only established fact in the whole article on that article. --Crusio (talk) 17:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems to be a legitimate academic journal. Not indexed in the most selective databases, but it is claimed to be indexed in several respectable databases of journals ~~(which, as Crusio says, are selective)~~. Has existed for 20 years, claims to be peer-reviewed, Google Scholar turns up papers published in the journal, etc. Current article has been trimmed back to a respectable stub. --Orlady (talk) 17:21, 19 September 2011 (UTC) I did find it indexed in REPEC = Research Papers in Economics. Did not check the others. --Orlady (talk) 18:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep I do not think there are any actually selective indexes in this area in the sense of SCI. Scopus/WoS coverage for applied topics is very weak. EconLit is moderately selective, and might be sufficient. Proquest/Ebsco/Gale select to a certain extent, and are sometimes all there is for journals of this nature. I'd accept the combination as sufficient. (I could make a case for the inclusion of every one of the 5 or 6000 journals those aggregators include, on the basis that they are so widely available we should make an exception to notability) Looking at other possible criteria: the board of editors is a weak criterion, but some of them have Wikipedia articles. There are only about 30 holdings in WorldCat, but it's primarily an ejournal, which tend not to get cataloged. But it has certainly published at least one famous paper. Tim O'reilly's What is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software in v.1 has over 3000 citations in Google Scholar. Other indicidual papers have citations in the 30s . On balance, sufficiently notable . (edit conflict with Orlady, but my argument is essential the same) DGG ( talk ) 18:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not quite ready to change to keep, but I fully agree with the {{Rescue}} tag. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:30, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter (talk) 15:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep DGG should count as a subject expert on the matter of journal notability! His argument is both informed and convincing. TheGrappler (talk) 02:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep DGG makes a convincing case. Dream Focus 00:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.