Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/"Journal of Injury and Violence Research"
- 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. Several reasonable and experienced editors seem to reach different conclusions based on the same sourcing situation: this journal is clearly somewhere on the wonderful blurry line of notability. A merge to an appropriate target is possibly a good compromise, but there is an abundant lack of consensus to do anything in particular here. ~ mazca talk 20:37, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Journal of Injury and Violence Research" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
It don't seem (yet) a notable journal. Anyway a similar article (Journal of Injury and Violence Research), without the quotes in the title was already deleted, and it seems to me that the quotes was a way to hide the previous undeletion. I tried with Wp:PROD, but it was contested (without giving reasons). As alternative: move (without quotes) and delete the original page (link). Cate | Talk 15:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (and rename without quotes)—There appear to be enough independent sources to establish the baseline notability of this journal,[1][2][3] and at least some of the editors and reviewers are established academics in prestigious universities. That works for me.—RJH (talk) 17:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- None of those links establish notability of the journal, simply that it exists and that papers are published in it. More relevant references are the Directory of open access journals, e-journals.org listing, and PKP Sample of Journals Using Open Journal Systems. -- Radagast3 (talk) 07:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not yet notable. New journal, v. 1 published in 2009. Indexed in only DOAJ and Google Scholar, which do not count for notability, and Safety Literature, a minor index. The references are utterly trivial. DGG ( talk ) 01:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (and rename without quotes). See the (somewhat marginal) references above. Note: the previous article was deleted via PROD, so there was no discussion then. -- Radagast3 (talk) 07:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep -- this is clearly a real, legitimate journal, currently just on the grey edge at the boundaries of notability. See also [4]. I think we should assume good faith here. -- The Anome (talk) 08:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Trivial sources. Not even close to being notable (see also WP:Notability (academic journals)). No doubt about good faith or that this is a legitimate journal, just a complete lack of notability. --Crusio (talk) 14:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I knew there had to be a specific policy somewhere. But doesn't listing in Safety Literature satisfy Criterion 1: "included in the major indexing services in its field"? Or would Safety Literature be a minor index, as suggested by DGG? -- Radagast3 (talk) 15:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not really a policy, as it has not been accepted as such. Nevertheless it has been used a lot by members of the Journals Wikiproject. If DGG says that "Safety Literature" is a minor indexing service, that's good enough for me (after all, he has a lot of professional experience in this area). --Crusio (talk) 17:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I see what you mean: it's a notability essay, not a policy -- I hadn't noticed that. On general notability guidelines, though, I think this journal is just barely over the wire, so I'll retain my "keep" !vote, I think. -- Radagast3 (talk) 22:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the reason for that essay was that almost no academic journal becomes notable under GNG, because there rarely are references about an academic journal (most references will be to articles in a journal). With one exception, the "references" unearthed so far are just directory listings (in directories that list everything, without any selection). If that counts toward notability, then anyone listed in a phone book should be notable, too... The one exception is a note about a researcher having an article published in this journal. I surmise this hardly represents notability either. As DGG already stated, this is all very trivial and absolutely any journal will have this kind of "references". If people here want to argue that all academic journals are notable, that's fine with me, but definitely goes against the majority of people participating in the debate about whether or not WP:Notability (academic journals) should become an official guideline or not (see talk page there). --Crusio (talk) 00:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The listing in SafetyLit seems to me to be of rather more value than being listed in the phone book; there seems to be some degree of selectivity there. -- Radagast3 (talk) 00:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is. If you feel that a listing in a rather minor directory satisfies GNG, you should maintain your keep !vote. I think it definitely is too meager. --Crusio (talk) 01:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I just created a stub on the publisher of the journal, the Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, in case anyone thinks merging it there would be a good idea.--PinkBull 03:12, 9 July 2010 (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.