- 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 No Consensus to Delete. I cannot extract a consensus from the comments below. Eluchil404 ( talk) 04:05, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
International Journal of e-Collaboration
AfDs for this article:
- International Journal of e-Collaboration ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is a journal published by IGI Global, a non-notable publisher - largely a vanity press - whose article was deleted. This article has no independent sources to establish notability. We have no policy on inclusion based on WP:ITSINDEXED, we require reliable independent secondary sources about the subject, and this has none. Guy ( Help!) 23:31, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
- Keep From the 2014 AfD for this journal: The journal is indexed in INSPEC (behind a paywall, I verified the journal was on the old 2012 list), PsychINFO [1] and SCOPUS (sourcerecord id 12000154321 in the April 2013 title list), all selective indexes. The journal thus satisfies notability criteria according to WP:NJournals criterion 1. While WP:NJournals is still technically an essay, in AfD discussions about journals, it has been treated as a de facto guideline for notability for at least the last 4 years I have been at WP. -- Mark viking ( talk) 01:13, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. Selected for indexing in Scopus. -- Randykitty ( talk) 07:19, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
- The subject specific notability guideline might say that, but using that as an absolute criterion for inclusion would plainly violate
WP:NOTDIR, so the test has to be: are there reliable independent sources about this journal? And the answer is: no.
Guy (
Help!) 13:54, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
- I disagree. There's a reliable independent source (the inclusion in Scopus) that confirms that this journal is among the top journals in its field (Scopus indexes about 20 thousand journals, whereas there are an estimated 100,000 or more that are currently published). -- Randykitty ( talk) 13:59, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
- The subject specific notability guideline might say that, but using that as an absolute criterion for inclusion would plainly violate
WP:NOTDIR, so the test has to be: are there reliable independent sources about this journal? And the answer is: no.
Guy (
Help!) 13:54, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable independent sources as required by the WP:GNG. Automated abstracting databases are not reliable independent sources. Stuartyeates ( talk) 09:55, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
- Comment So I guess you'll want to delete 95% of all our articles on academic journals... There's nothing automated about being selected for inclusion in the listed databases, which is the result of an in-depth evaluation by a committee of experts. -- Randykitty ( talk) 10:08, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Yes. Being selected for inclusion in the listed databases is a binary decision which is not 'in-depth coverage'. Stuartyeates ( talk) 09:11, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
- Comment From WP:NJOURNALS: "If the journal can be considered a reliable source, this will be often be sufficient to create a stub on a particular journal, even in the absence of other sources." IMHO, this journal is a reliable source (with its listing in journal indexes), so this applies here. — Jonathan Bowen ( talk) 13:26, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Actually, here I disagree. It is notable because of its inclusion in Scopus, but I'd hesitate to use it as an RS, given the inclusion of its publisher on Jeffrey Beall's list of predatory publishers. Personally, I think that Scopus erred in including this journal, but it is not up to us WP editors to second-guess sources... -- Randykitty ( talk) 13:40, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- Comment — I cannot see the publisher IGI Global listed in Beall's List under [2]. Could you point to where it is listed or is this a mistake? — Jonathan Bowen ( talk) 16:30, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
- You're right, my bad. It's a subscription publisher, which Beall does not include on his lists. Still, see this article. IGI Global clearly is a bottom feeder and I'd be very careful with any of its publications. In any case, WP:NOTINHERITED applies so whether or not the publisher is notable is irrelevant. And although your quote from NJournals (about creating a stub even if sources are absent) is correct, but I don't think many editors here will actually agree with that (I don't). -- Randykitty ( talk) 17:10, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 15:12, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 15:12, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
- Keep – Passes Wikipedia:NJOURNALS Criterion 1 with citation indexes. — Jonathan Bowen ( talk) 12:42, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
- That's a subject-specific notability guideline. As you know the publisher is not notable (you have tried to subvert the deletion of that article); ,the issue here is that while the notability guideline tells us what sort of journals are likely to have the sources we require per canonical policy (
WP:V/
WP:RS,
WP:NPOV,
WP:NOTDIR etc), there is no actual evidence that there are such sources for this subject.
Guy (
Help!) 13:54, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
- You have previously described the publisher IGI Global as a vanity press in discussions yet Wikipedia's definition is as follows: "A vanity press, vanity publisher, or subsidy publisher is a term describing a publishing house in which authors pay to have their books published." The publisher does not charge for publishing so is not a vanity press. So I believe (IMHO) you have mistakenly subverted the Wikipedia process on this publisher by spreading misinformation. That said, by this definition, open access publishing by publishers like Elsevier is "vanity publishing"! — Jonathan Bowen ( talk) 18:24, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
- That's a subject-specific notability guideline. As you know the publisher is not notable (you have tried to subvert the deletion of that article); ,the issue here is that while the notability guideline tells us what sort of journals are likely to have the sources we require per canonical policy (
WP:V/
WP:RS,
WP:NPOV,
WP:NOTDIR etc), there is no actual evidence that there are such sources for this subject.
Guy (
Help!) 13:54, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:43, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:43, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
- Comment – the suggestion that this journal is published by a (largely)
vanity press, as implied in the proposal above, should be discounted since this is an incorrect designation according to
Wikpedia's own definition of a vanity press, IMHO. Indeed, I believe that the publisher IGI Global (founded in 1988 with 170+ journals to its name) was deleted due to misinformation on this aspect in the deletion discussion. See further information above. —
Jonathan Bowen (
talk) 23:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IGI Global (2nd nomination) for the arguments that got the publisher's article deleted. The closing admin referred to 'disreputable practices'. Stuartyeates ( talk) 01:55, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
- Note — I cannot see the publisher IGI Global listed in Beall's List of predatory publishers under [3], as claimed above. This claim should be discounted if so. — Jonathan Bowen ( talk) 16:30, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
- delete - fails WP:N and an essay does not ovverride a policy. Jytdog ( talk) 23:48, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. We have a standard. If it is in Scopus, it meets the standard. Scopus despitre being more inlcusive than WOS, is till a sleectiveindex. DGG ( talk ) 07:12, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
- Note — the editor-in-chief of the journal, Ned Kock, has his own Wikipedia page. While this is not an official Wikipedia criterion, a notable editor-in-chief of a journal is in practice a strong indicator that the journal itself is notable. — Jonathan Bowen ( talk) 14:44, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Considering the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IGI Global (2nd nomination), keeping the article solely on the basis of the journal being included in an index would result in the incorrect perception that this is a reputable scientific journal by a reputable publisher. Sandstein 17:01, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
- Comment. That sounds like an inverse argument of WP:INHERITED: the publisher is not notable, so the journals inherits this non-notability... -- Randykitty ( talk) 17:21, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
- Comment — note that the summary of the discussion was "there is a very narrow consensus to delete". Arguably there was no consensus. In any case, the listing in multiple journal indexes, especially Scopus but also the more computing-specific ACM and DBLP (important and trusted in computer science), meets WP:NJOURNALS. — Jonathan Bowen ( talk) 20:10, 6 December 2016 (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.