- 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. Consensus is that while the quality of the article is lacking, that is not a reason to delete it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:57, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Algorithms (journal)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Algorithms (journal) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There are really no independent sources on this journal; plus, the company that publishes it, MDPI, has come under fire as a publisher of predatory journals (see this). Thus, the information about being "peer-reviewed" is almost certainly false, and demonstrates the unreliability of this article. Because of this, it should be deleted under our general notability criteria and our verifiability policy. RileyBugz 私に叫ぼう 私の編集 02:09, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
- Delete. I don't think our unsubstantiated opinions about the quality of review at this journal are worth much as a reason for deletion. (In my own case, I know nothing about its standards for peer review, but I am troubled by the fact that, although it occasionally publishes work by reputable researchers, the vast majority of the papers published in this journal are not on what I recognize as the design and analysis of algorithms.) But as the only real notability guideline for journal notability is WP:GNG ( WP:NJournals is suggestive but not definitive), and no in-depth independently published sources are evident, we have no basis for keeping the article. — David Eppstein ( talk) 02:49, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Kpgj hpjm 04:07, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Kpgj hpjm 04:07, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Kpgj hpjm 04:07, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
- Weak keep. As our article on MDPI documents, it was indeed listed by Beall as a predatory publisher, but then removed from his list (long before he was forced to close that down). In addition, the journal is listed in Scopus, which we generally accept as evidence of notability in these discussions. As that's the only claim to fame, however, I only !vote "weak keep". -- Randykitty ( talk) 07:56, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep. As http://www.mdpi.com/search?q=&journal=algorithms&sort=article_citedby&page_count=50 shows, quite a number of widely cited papers have appeared in this journal. Therefore quite a number of readers might be interested to look up what kind of journal this is. -- Nsda ( talk) 08:17, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep, indexed in Scopus and both zbMATH and MathSciNet, and it's reasonably cited so that passes WP:NJOURNALS. MDPI is certainly a questionable publisher, but they're no OMICS Publishing Group. All in all, we're better off with this article than without. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 01:49, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep I agree. scope_creep ( talk) 08:27, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep agree with the other keeps, Algorithms is adequately cited, meets WP:NJournals and meets WP:GNG (even if not with flying colors). JC7V -constructive zone 21:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
- @
JC7V7DC5768: How does it meet GNG? I can't find any significant coverage, a requirement of it.
RileyBugz
私に叫ぼう
私の編集 22:41, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
- @
RileyBugz:}, From reading the WP:GNG and the other discussions I realized that it is a keep because of the indexing in Scopus (which meets 1B in WP:NJournals) and because of MathsciNet indexing plus searching in Google Scholar made me realize the article belongs here.
JC7V
-constructive zone 01:34, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
- @
JC7V7DC5768: Are you arguing from policy (or guidelines)? Because NJOURNALS isn't policy, and since this doesn't meet GNG, which is a guideline, it thus violates
WP:V. We can verify that it exists, but that doesn't matter; we need more than that to make it remotely useful as an encyclopedia article.
RileyBugz
私に叫ぼう
私の編集 01:48, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
- @
RileyBugz:}, well guidelines are there for a reason, to guide us to the correct decision which it did for me and a few of the other supports above. As for independant coverage, I found
this, which seems to show that the Algorithms Journal's reliablity problems has had a signficant effect on the academic world. Some pseudo science journals can also have articles if they get enough significant coverage (per WP:NJournal). This kind of reliablity issues for this journal seems like it has and will continue to get that kind of coverage.Also see
this So if you combine it all it passes.
JC7V
-constructive zone 02:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
- @ JC7V7DC5768: The two articles you linked don't mention the journal once. RileyBugz 私に叫ぼう 私の編集 02:17, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
- @
RileyBugz:}, well guidelines are there for a reason, to guide us to the correct decision which it did for me and a few of the other supports above. As for independant coverage, I found
this, which seems to show that the Algorithms Journal's reliablity problems has had a signficant effect on the academic world. Some pseudo science journals can also have articles if they get enough significant coverage (per WP:NJournal). This kind of reliablity issues for this journal seems like it has and will continue to get that kind of coverage.Also see
this So if you combine it all it passes.
JC7V
-constructive zone 02:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
- @
JC7V7DC5768: Are you arguing from policy (or guidelines)? Because NJOURNALS isn't policy, and since this doesn't meet GNG, which is a guideline, it thus violates
WP:V. We can verify that it exists, but that doesn't matter; we need more than that to make it remotely useful as an encyclopedia article.
RileyBugz
私に叫ぼう
私の編集 01:48, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
- @
RileyBugz:}, From reading the WP:GNG and the other discussions I realized that it is a keep because of the indexing in Scopus (which meets 1B in WP:NJournals) and because of MathsciNet indexing plus searching in Google Scholar made me realize the article belongs here.
JC7V
-constructive zone 01:34, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
- @
JC7V7DC5768: How does it meet GNG? I can't find any significant coverage, a requirement of it.
RileyBugz
私に叫ぼう
私の編集 22:41, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
- Delete - there are multiple references quoted, but they don't seem to do anything other than prove existence, and the ones mooted by JC7V7DC5768 don't seem to cover it at all. I can't see sheer listing at Scopus being anywhere near sufficient, and if GNG is the primary notability grounds here, then standard levels of sourcing quality is required, and it isn't met. Nosebagbear ( talk) 09:43, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- Now this is a completely different rationale than that given in the original deletion request. I could agree with you if we did a similar purge on all journal articles, regardless of what we guess about the quality of the journal, basing deletion decisions solely on your criterion. --
Nsda (
talk) 15:50, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- @ Nsda:, firstly there is nothing preventing later editors providing additional deletion rationales to that originally offered. Secondly, your claim is a rather dramatic rebuttal of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. NJOURNAL is an essay, and I'm none too sure about the suitability of using it rather than purely than WP:GNG (which definitely sets out firmer Sig Cov/reliable source requirements than are met in this article/discussion). Nosebagbear ( talk) 16:28, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- Now this is a completely different rationale than that given in the original deletion request. I could agree with you if we did a similar purge on all journal articles, regardless of what we guess about the quality of the journal, basing deletion decisions solely on your criterion. --
Nsda (
talk) 15:50, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:43, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:43, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- Delete: the references, taken together, amount to just enough information for a directory listing -- there is no content in any of them that might be called "encyclopedic", and there seems to be little reason to believe that other, better sources exist. -- JBL ( talk) 22:08, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
- This is not, and has never been, a directory listing in the sense of WP:NOTDIR. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 17:29, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- Keep The least squishy criterion that I've seen invoked in academic-journal deletion discussions is "listing in selective databases". Being indexed in Scopus is enough to carry this one over the line. XOR'easter ( talk) 20:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- Weak Keep I'd prefer to see this deleted based on the paucity of sourcing, however, by my reading of the standards of NJOURNAL (the journal being indexed in Scopus) I am, regrettably, compelled to !vote Keep. Though, if there's a question about the veracity or - indeed - existence of its peer review process I feel like we can probably edit that away. Chetsford ( talk) 22:05, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- Weak keep as it seems to pass the notability guideline for journals. Enterprisey ( talk!) 02:31, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
- Weak Keep per previous two comments. The article most definitely needs more information added to it, but it still appears to be notable. Redditaddict _6_ 9 05:01, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
- 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.