Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academic journals

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Academic journals. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Academic journals|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Academic journals. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academic journals/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Shortcut

WP:DAJ

Academic journals

Nanki Seibutsu

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

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded with reason "Created by a prolific contributor", but without addressing the lack of sources. Google search does not render anything useful, whereas MIAR indicates not a single notable database (selective or not) that lists this journal. Therefore PROD reason still stands, hence; delete. Randykitty (talk) 21:45, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 21:45, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Biology and Japan. Shellwood (talk) 21:47, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I created the article because the journal is cited in Chaetopterus luteus, which was created by 72.211.223.50 (talk · contribs · count), and I initially thought it was indexed by a selective database. I suppose this is evidence that a journal can be useful without being notable. It's a Japanese-language journal about the biology of the Kii Peninsula (strictly speaking, about Nanki (南紀), "the area south of the “Central Tectonic Line” ... is home to reef-like coral communities which are amongst the northernmost in the world." Using the current criteria for journal notability, Nanki Seibutsu isn't notable, but I wish there was a way to include otherwise-unexciting journals that publish an article that gets a lot of citations. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:32, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Does meet WP:Journals #2, the journal is referred to and cited mostly in Jp in numerous reliable publications. See Gb results with 南紀生物. - Eva Ux 05:20, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: GScholar shows only a handful of articles that get cited mostly in the single digits. Searching for 南紀生物 is hardly better with just one article getting 33 cites. This is far from meeting NJournals#2. --Randykitty (talk) 06:58, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TheoretiCS

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

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG". Article dePRODded with reason " I don't know this journal well enough to be sure it will survive AfD but it shows every signs of being a serious journal with two editors who seem to clearly satisfy notability guidelines. Needs better sources but PROD doesn't allow enough consideration of this." PROD reason still stands, hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 08:02, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academic journals and Computing. Randykitty (talk) 08:02, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep As yet, this fails WP:V / WP:RS. Accordingly it would be a target for deletion. However I'm not going to !vote delete on something for that reason when it's barely a week since it was created.

If this can be sourced, we should keep it. It's a few years old, it should be possible. If it doesn't get sourced, I can't strongly object to those deleting it for that reason. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:19, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Andy, for academic journals it's actually pretty simple: only rarely do there exist reliable sources independent of the journal or its publisher that discuss a journal in depth. What remains is WP:NJournals. While not everybody agrees that meeting NJournals is enough to establish notability, everybody agrees that not meeting NJournals is a strong indicator of lacking notability. In the present case, a Google search does not render anything of interest (hence fails GNG), whereas MIAR indicates that this journal is only included in DOAJ, which does not do anything for notability, meaning that this also fails NJournals. --Randykitty (talk) 14:00, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. (Disclaimer: I believe this is a good journal and have published in it.) At a recent scientific meeting it was announced that this journal would like both to be added to the standard scientific indexes and to Wikipedia. I responded that, for an article to stick, Wikipedia should wait at least until the indexing already happened. Obviously, someone else got the first message but not the second. WP:TOOSOON. We have no independent sourcing at all, not even indexing let alone sourcing that would pass WP:GNG, the controlling notability guideline. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:04, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
> Obviously, someone else got the first message but not the second.

[Page creator here] Just for the record, I have no affiliation or link whatsoever with the board of this journal. (In what context did the meeting you are mentioning take place?) Jean Abou Samra (talk) 17:28, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The public business meeting of the annual Symposium on Computational Geometry, in Kanazawa a month ago. I would guess that, if they made this sort of announcement there, they're likely to have done so elsewhere as well, such as maybe at STOC. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:34, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re indexing, FYI: https://dblp.org/streams/journals/theoretics --MRA (talk) 16:21, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 13:34, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question Is there any article to which this could be merged/redirected? Overlay journal, perhaps (which looks like it could use a list of examples)? Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 18:40, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or draftify per David Eppstein. Suggestion: can't we create Episciences first? A topic that is worth covering. Caleb Stanford (talk) 16:39, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(see fr:Episciences) Caleb Stanford (talk) 16:40, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't feel comfortable directly voting in this discussion because I was involved in running the journal some years ago. While it's true that the journal isn't currently indexed in Scopus and other databases, I was able to find some sources that talk about it, so I have added them to the article. I don't know whether they suffice for the journal to be notable -- three of them are announcements of the journal in various TCS venues by people involved with the journal, and otherwise there are independent conferences proceedings that mention the journal as a place where extended papers were invited. Again, I don't want to weigh in on the discussion of whether the page should be kept or not, but I thought I could bring up these citations -- I hope this isn't inappropriate! --a3nm (talk) 06:47, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

Journal of Experiments in Fluid Mechanics (via WP:PROD on 18 May 2025)