Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frontiers in... journal series: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Randykitty (talk | contribs) m →Frontiers in... journal series: tweak |
+re |
||
Line 76:
::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)
| |||