Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Algorithms (journal): Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Scope creep (talk | contribs) Keep |
Ritchie333 (talk | contribs) →Algorithms (journal): Closed as keep (XFDcloser) |
||
| (21 intermediate revisions by 11 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;">
===[[:Algorithms (journal)]]===▼
:''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.''
<!--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 '''keep'''. Consensus is that while the quality of the article is lacking, that is not a reason to delete it. [[User:Ritchie333|<b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b>]] [[User talk:Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)</sup>]] 10:57, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
▲===[[:Algorithms (journal)]]===
<noinclude>{{AFD help}}</noinclude>
:{{la|Algorithms (journal)}} – (<includeonly>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Algorithms (journal)|View AfD]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018
:({{Find sources AFD|Algorithms (journal)}})
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 [https://www.ashclinicalnews.org/features/predatory-publishing-dark-side-open-access-movement/ 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 [[WP:GNG|general notability criteria]] and our [[WP:V|verifiability policy]]. [[User:RileyBugz|<span style="color:#2D3D67">RileyBugz</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:RileyBugz|<span style="color:#D7000B">私に叫ぼう</span>]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/RileyBugz|<span style="color:#D7000B">私の編集</span>]]</sub> 02:09, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Line 14 ⟶ 19:
::{{ping|Nsda}} But they can just go to the journal's website. Also, how can we say what kind of journal it is when we don't have independent verification? [[User:RileyBugz|<span style="color:#2D3D67">RileyBugz</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:RileyBugz|<span style="color:#D7000B">私に叫ぼう</span>]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/RileyBugz|<span style="color:#D7000B">私の編集</span>]]</sub> 17:16, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
*'''Keep''', indexed in Scopus and both zbMATH and MathSciNet, and it's [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22Algorithms%22+MDPI&btnG= 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. <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> 01:49, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' I agree. [[User:Scope creep|scope_creep]] ([[User talk: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). [[User:JC7V7DC5768|<em style="font-family:Rubik;color:Lollipop">JC7V</em>]]<small>[[User talk:JC7V7DC5768|'''<em style="font-family:Ebrima;color:Purple">-constructive zone</em>''']]</small> 21:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
::{{ping|JC7V7DC5768}} How does it meet GNG? I can't find any significant coverage, a requirement of it. [[User:RileyBugz|<span style="color:#2D3D67">RileyBugz</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:RileyBugz|<span style="color:#D7000B">私に叫ぼう</span>]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/RileyBugz|<span style="color:#D7000B">私の編集</span>]]</sub> 22:41, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
:::{{ping|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.[[User:JC7V7DC5768|<em style="font-family:Rubik;color:Lollipop">JC7V</em>]]<small>[[User talk:JC7V7DC5768|'''<em style="font-family:Ebrima;color:Purple">-constructive zone</em>''']]</small> 01:34, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
::::{{ping|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. [[User:RileyBugz|<span style="color:#2D3D67">RileyBugz</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:RileyBugz|<span style="color:#D7000B">私に叫ぼう</span>]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/RileyBugz|<span style="color:#D7000B">私の編集</span>]]</sub> 01:48, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
:::::{{ping|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 [https://www.universityaffairs.ca/features/feature-article/beware-academics-getting-reeled-scam-journals/ 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 [https://www.ashclinicalnews.org/features/predatory-publishing-dark-side-open-access-movement/ this] So if you combine it all it passes. [[User:JC7V7DC5768|<em style="font-family:Rubik;color:Lollipop">JC7V</em>]]<small>[[User talk:JC7V7DC5768|'''<em style="font-family:Ebrima;color:Purple">-constructive zone</em>''']]</small> 02:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
::::::{{ping|JC7V7DC5768}} The two articles you linked don't mention the journal once. [[User:RileyBugz|<span style="color:#2D3D67">RileyBugz</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:RileyBugz|<span style="color:#D7000B">私に叫ぼう</span>]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/RileyBugz|<span style="color:#D7000B">私の編集</span>]]</sub> 02:17, 2 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. [[User:Nosebagbear|Nosebagbear]] ([[User talk: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. -- [[User:Nsda|Nsda]] ([[User talk:Nsda|talk]]) 15:50, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
:::{{Ping|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). [[User:Nosebagbear|Nosebagbear]] ([[User talk:Nosebagbear|talk]]) 16:28, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"><span style="color: #FF6600;">'''{{resize|91%|[[Wikipedia:Deletion process#Relisting discussions|Relisted]] to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}'''</span><br />
<small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<span style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</span>]]</span></small> 10:43, 7 August 2018 (UTC)</small><!-- from Template:Relist --></div><!-- Please add new comments below this line -->
* '''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. --[[User:Joel B. Lewis|JBL]] ([[User_talk:Joel_B._Lewis|talk]]) 22:08, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
:This is not, and has never been, a directory listing in the sense of [[WP:NOTDIR]]. <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> 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. [[User:XOR'easter|XOR'easter]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Chetsford|Chetsford]] ([[User talk:Chetsford|talk]]) 22:05, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
* '''Weak keep''' as it seems to pass the notability guideline for journals. [[User:Enterprisey|Enterprisey]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Redditaddict69|<b style="color:#3399FF">Redditaddict</b>]][[User talk:Redditaddict69|<b style="color:#339900">_6_</b>]][[Special:Contributions/Redditaddict69|<b style="color:#3399FF">9</b>]] 05:01, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
{{clear}}
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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>
| |||