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

Journal of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology

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

Non-notable journal published by a predatory publisher that has not been discussed in any capacity by independent sources and is not indexed by any selective databases. There was some previous discussion regarding the journal (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Academic_Journals/Archive_6#Keep_or_delete_this_journal?) but it has since been delisted from MEDLINE (NCBI) and Index Medicus (MIAR) with little fanfare. -- Recon rabbit 14:26, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academic journals and Science. -- Recon rabbit 14:26, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I debated with myself whether a redirect to Predatory publishing or Beall's list is a reasonable alternative, but I think a K.I.S.S. deletion is simplest. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:16, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I could only see redirecting being appropriate if American Scientific Publishers was a blue link. List of MDPI academic journals exists after all. -- Recon rabbit 15:44, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the independent sources (about its predatory nature/delisting) provide the significant depth of coverage needed for WP:GNG notability. WP:ITSUSEFUL to have a page warning us that this is not a high-quality journal but that's not an adequate reason for a keep, and there is no likely redirect target. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:26, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Revista Brasileira de Química

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV and has not citations in the article. Only mentions are in bibliographic databases. In the context of academic journals, this was apparently published in a time period between 1930 and 1980 as a local (country-specific) journal of chemistry though it has been difficult to pin down exact dates. Searching in CAS (chemical abstract service) SciFinder for the journal results in only 86 articles catalogued, and most of those seem to be reviews of general chemistry topics for the Brazilian audience (e.g. Armentano, M.A. Origin and development of cosmetic science and technology (1979), 87(527), 143-8). No external coverage that I can find beyond database listings in WorldCat and CAS. A few libraries may still have hard copies per WorldCat for those that can + want to look deeper via interlibrary loan to see if scientific contributions were significant. My prod was removed with the comment that this was an important scientific journal mid-century, but sourcing is still needed to back the notability claim. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 18:31, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 18:31, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator Based on sources that Headbomb has provided and the edits planned by BaduFerreira, I agree that merging pages about the various successive journals together or to their parent society pages is a better course of action. Not closing yet to avoid cutting off discussion. Willing to help locate articles from these journals (ping me).Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 03:35, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This was an important journal of chemistry in the mid 1990s. I'm 95% sure this is the precursor journal to Química Nova (established in 1978, followed the demise of this journal) and should be merged there (or perhaps at Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Química), but I don't speak Portugese and there's potential for confusion with other similarly named journals, from two different organization named Sociedade Brasileira de Química. This might offer insight. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:45, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you want a source that talks about the journal, this one does to a fair extent, though it covers the history of the first Sociedade Brasileira de Química, in Rio, not the second in Sao Paolo. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:00, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit, that might be about the other journal... It's so frustrating not to be able to speak portugese here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:06, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Revista Brasileira de Química into Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Química.

Very fascinating article! Thank you for finding it. On PDF page 3 (article page 447), it says that the first edition of the journal published by the Brazilian Chemical Society (SBQ) (more info on this later) in 1929 was titled the Revista Brasileira de Chimica, but the second edition published in 1931 was titled the Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Chimica. The title changed again in 1933 to spell Chimica (chemistry) as Química, which is the modern-day spelling, due to orthographic changes in the Portuguese language. That means that the two articles (Revista Brasileira de Química and Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Química) are about the same journal, so I think a merge is the proper course of action. The source describes other Brazilian chemistry societies, such as the Associação Química do Brasil (Chemistry Association of Brazil) that occasionally butted heads with the SBQ, the Associação Brasileira de Química (Brazilian Association of Chemistry), and then a new Sociedade Brasileira de Química that was founded in 1977 after the creation of the Brazilian Association of Chemistry. The source specifically mentions that the two instances of the Sociedade Brasileira de Química are distinct and separate organizations. We could probably use this article to flesh out the Brazilian Chemical Society article. I'll try to make some improvements to these articles in the next day or so! BaduFerreira (talk) 21:00, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merging to the relevant societies is also a possibility. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:39, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academic journals and Brazil. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:36, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vision: The Journal of Business Perspective

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

Nothing much on the page to suggest the notability criteria have been met and I'm not finding much else to consider. WP:NJOURNAL is an essay and a bit opaque but I'm not seeing anything there that this journal unambiguously fits for inclusion. JMWt (talk) 06:43, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 06:43, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To add: the editor that worked on this page also worked on a number of other journals from the same publisher. Which seems a bit suspicious (of COI editing) given they didn't seem to do anything else in their editing history. JMWt (talk) 06:47, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Journal is indexed and fairly well-ranked in SCOPUS. Keep per WP:NJOURNALS. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:54, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Nobody (talk) 08:09, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The journal is listed in Clarivate and Scopus. According to the Journal Citation Reports, it has a ranking of 136 out of 304 in the category of Business and 177 out of 407 in the category of Management.[1] Hence, it is not an insignificant journal and can pass WP:GNG. Nanosci (talk) 22:58, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss whether Scopus is sufficient for notability
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 11:36, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My question is about the above (assuming that the numbers are correct); so there are more than 300 business journals and 400 management journals in the system. Are we saying all 300 business and 400 management journals are notable? Or the best 10%? Or some number? For me, I don't think anything outside of the top 25% of anything can be considered "the best" or "the most notable" in common language. JMWt (talk) 13:08, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. There exist thousands of business journals, being one of the few hundred that gets indexed in WOS makes it likely notable. Nobody (talk) 17:43, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: ESCI and Scopus indexing meets NJournals. Nobody (talk) 06:46, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

International Journal of Fertility (via WP:PROD on 27 February 2025)