Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frontiers in... journal series: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 07:02, 18 March 2018

Latest revision as of 03:44, 31 January 2022

(16 intermediate revisions by 12 users not shown)

Line 1:

<div class="boilerplate afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">

===[[:Frontiers in... journal series]]===

:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.''

{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|O}}

<!--Template:Afd top

Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links to create a new discussion page using the name format of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME (2nd nomination)]]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->

The result was '''no consensus'''. There is Cleary no consensus to delete are arguments are reasonably split between merge or keep. Neither option requires an AFD so further discussion belongs on the article talk page. [[User:Spartaz|Spartaz]] ^{''[[User talk:Spartaz|Humbug!]]''} 17:56, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

===[[:Frontiers in... journal series]]===

:{{la|Frontiers in... journal series}} – (<includeonly>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frontiers in... journal series|View AfD]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 March 14#{{anchorencode:Frontiers in... journal series}}|View log]]</noinclude>{{int:dot-separator}} <span class="plainlinks">[https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Frontiers_in..._journal_series Stats]</span>)

:({{Find sources AFD|Frontiers in... journal series}})

Line 29 ⟶ 34:

::::::Based on the article. Did you even read it? There's plenty of analysis, history, commentary, sourcing. It goes well beyond a simple listing (which would be completely fine to have on its own, btw), and easily passes [[WP:GNG]]. <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">[[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {[[User talk:Headbomb|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|c]] · [[WP:PHYS|p]] · [[WP:WBOOKS|b]]}</span> 10:55, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

*'''Delete''' Headbomb pretty much explicitly states above that this pointless list was created to dodge its inclusion in the main article. --[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 02:32, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

:That is exactly what I do not state. <s>My prefered solution is to include this in the article.</s> This is a compromise version. This is not an attempt to 'dodge inclusion', this is an attempt to maximize satisfaction.<span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">[[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {[[User talk:Headbomb|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|c]] · [[WP:PHYS|p]] · [[WP:WBOOKS|b]]}</span> 02:46, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

:::Note, with the recent expansions, my preferred solution is now a standalone article. <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">[[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {[[User talk:Headbomb|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|c]] · [[WP:PHYS|p]] · [[WP:WBOOKS|b]]}</span> 10:58, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

::There wasn't yet a consensus to get around. I'd prefer to keep everything in one article; a separate list page was a not-great but not-bad-sounding alternative. Failing that, I think the sources turned up in the course of building this page (e.g., footnotes 11&ndash;17) should be incorporated into the main [[Frontiers Media]] article. Generally, I just think that when I look up a publisher in a reference work, one thing I'd like to be able to find is what they publish. [[User:XOR&#39;easter|XOR&#39;easter]] ([[User talk:XOR&#39;easter|talk]]) 05:25, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Line 51 ⟶ 56:

::::::::{{Re|Semmendinger}} The first ref addresses specifically how the picture of predatory publishing changes depending on whether or not you consider the Frontiers journal series to be predatory. As for the list itself, it's of rather paramount importance, otherwise readers cannot know what journals are in the series, which also runs the risk of confusing [[Frontiers#In science and academia|a slew of journals and book series]] named ''Frontiers in/of...'' such as ''[[Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology]]'' (Elsevier) which a reader could easily assume is part of the series when it's not. Or even a worse situation, dealing with ''[[Frontiers of Physics]]'' ([[Springer (publisher)|Springer]]/[[Higher Education Press]] journal) vs. ''[[Frontiers in Physics]]'' (Frontiers Media journal) vs [https://www.thriftbooks.com/series/frontiers-in-physics/41237/ Frontiers in Physics] (Princeton University Press book series).<span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">[[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {[[User talk:Headbomb|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|c]] · [[WP:PHYS|p]] · [[WP:WBOOKS|b]]}</span> 04:44, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

:::::::::Consider this situation, Alice applies for a job, with Bob being in charge of the hiring process. Alice published a paper in ''[[Frontiers in Diabetes]]''. Having heard colleges having debates about the ''Frontiers in...'' series before, Bob decides to check the Frontiers Media/Frontiers journal series article to see what the fuss was about, but it doesn't mention which journals are parts of it, nor is the information available on Wikipedia. Since the journal is named ''Frontiers in...'', they assume it's part of the ''Frontiers in ...'' series, while at the same time learning its publishes a lot of quackery, AIDS denialism, anti-vaccines crap, and the like. Bob then judges Alice negatively for publishing in quack journals, and hires someone else instead. <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">[[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {[[User talk:Headbomb|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|c]] · [[WP:PHYS|p]] · [[WP:WBOOKS|b]]}</span> 04:58, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

::::::::::I get your point, but that argument doesn't have a place on Wikipedia and I can't use it when i'm deciding how to vote. Maybe Bob shouldn't be checking Wikipedia when he can check the main Frontiers site instead? Who knows - all I know is we need to go off policy and not contrived hypothetical scenarios. [[User:Semmendinger|<b style="color:#000080">S<small>EMMENDINGER</small></b>]] ([[User talk:Semmendinger|<b style="color:#F80"><small>talk</small></b>]]) 14:33, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

:::::::::::Gutting an article to the point of near-uselessness is not a policy-based argument. This ''easily'' passes [[WP:GNG]] or [[WP:NJOURNALS]]. <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">[[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {[[User talk:Headbomb|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|c]] · [[WP:PHYS|p]] · [[WP:WBOOKS|b]]}</span> 14:46, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

* '''Speedy keep''': We have a discussion to merge the list in a article and this only done to remove the list without clear discussion. For now, speedy keep it until there are clear discussion to remove it. [[Special:Contributions/176.27.175.9|176.27.175.9]] ([[User talk:176.27.175.9|talk]]) 18:34, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

:: To the extent that any sense can be made of this !vote at all, it appears to have the sequence of events that led to the creation of this article precisely backwards. --[[User:Joel B. Lewis|JBL]] ([[User_talk:Joel_B._Lewis|talk]]) 23:46, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Line 70 ⟶ 77:

:: References 2, 15, 16 and 17 in the article as it currently stands are secondary sources that all identify the list of Frontiers journals as a unit (saying that all of them together can be considered a [[megajournal]]). Restricting a list to elements that are individually notable is eminently sensible in some cases (e.g., [[List of people by Erdős number]]), but it is not the only way to go about listing (e.g., [[List of polygons]], or closer to the topic at hand, the publications section of [[Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics|SIAM]] or [[American Physical Society|APS]]). Per [[WP:CSC]], a short and complete list "of every item that is verifiably a member of the group" is permitted "if a complete list is reasonably short (less than 32K) and could be useful (e.g., for navigation) or interesting to readers." I think that a 4-by-15 table of 2,098 characters is "reasonably short", that it can aid navigation, and that the relative proportion of bluelinked items to plain ones is itself indicative about the Frontiers business. I can't speak to whether it is "interesting to readers" in general, but if they've read that far into a page about a topic of academic interest (pun intended) they probably care at least a little.

:: The general hostility of this discussion has been remarkably high (I am reminded of [[Sayre's law]]). I would like to apologize if I have contributed to that atmosphere, and I will be taking advantage of the "opportunity" that work deadlines are giving me to step away from wiki-stuff for a few days. [[User:XOR&#39;easter|XOR&#39;easter]] ([[User talk:XOR&#39;easter|talk]]) 02:19, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

*'''Keep'''. Adequately sourced, and I think it's important to have this as a warning to readers that content in those journals might not be reliable. I was holding off on giving an opinion because in its earlier state (as a bare list) it wasn't clear that it made sense to fork this from the article about its publisher, but now that the article has been beefed up I no longer have that concern. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 16:22, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

*'''Keep.''' With this many titles, it's appropriate to have a separate list. '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 03:03, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

::I don't understand the purpose of the main article anymore. This and that are basically the same thing, but that has a few corporate details that this one doesn't, and this one of course has The List. We basically have two chunks of content that we need to keep in sync which is just a stupid waste of time, especially on a journal that is controversial like this. [[User:DGG]] and [[User:David Eppstein]] your !votes make no sense in a meta-editing sense and are frankly disappointing. Headbomb pre-emptively did a SPLIT instead of just working the process (if we had gone to an RfC the list may well have stayed there_. Way to reward shitty behavior and make more work for the commmunity. We should probably just merge the main article here. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]])

*'''Merge'''. I've been following this discussion for a while now, but as I don't see any new arguments come up, I decided to give my 2c. Headbomb has put in a great effort to make this an interesting article and I think he has succeeded in that. He has also shown that the series is notable, I feel. The reason I still recommend a merge is the fact that I fail to see much different between "Frontiers Media" and the "Frontiers in" series. Frontiers is a different case from the BMC series. Frontiers ''only'' publishes journals in the "Frontiers in" series, whereas BioMed Central publishes the a number of journals outside of the BMC series. As such, I find that for most sources in this article it is not really clear whether they are about the publisher as such or about the series as such. Neither the article on the series nor the article on Frontiers Media is so large that a merge would be prohibitive (and there is some duplication anyway). As for the question whether the list of journals should stay or not, I am neutral. On the one hand, as I have already said elsewhere, I strongly dislike this kind of lists and in general do not feel that they add much value. On the other hand I am susceptible to the argument that readers should be able to see easily whether a certain journal is published by Frontiers or not. An alternative might be to remove the list of journals and replace it under "see also" with a list of notable journals named Frontiers in/of that are ''not'' published by Frontiers (perhaps with a subheading "Journals named Frontiers in/of that are not published by Frontiers Media"). --[[User:Randykitty|Randykitty]] ([[User talk:Randykitty|talk]]) 10:27, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

**Well, there is one difference. One can be completely oblivious to the company, while being very interested in the issues around the open access and open peer review model exemplified by the journal series. In fact, I think the company is less relevant than the series, so if anything I'd merge the other way round. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 11:32, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

***I agree with Randykitty, although I am open to KEEP or to merge as Nemo suggests. As long as the information on Frontiers remains.[[User:Michaplot|Michaplot]] ([[User talk:Michaplot|talk]]) 02:10, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

*'''Keep''' Notable enough, sourced fine, the content should stay. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">[[User:QEDK|<span style="color:#b7e">QEDK</span>]] ([[User talk:QEDK|<span style="color:#fac">後</span>]] ☕ [[Special:Contributions/QEDK|<span style="color:#fac">桜</span>]])</span> 20:19, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

*<s>Keep</s> '''Merge'''. Notable journals (for rum reasons), but this should be merged to [[Frontiers Media]]. [[User:Alexbrn|Alexbrn]] ([[User talk:Alexbrn|talk]]) 11:36, 22 March 2018 (UTC); amended 11:39, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

{{clear}}

:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>