Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Academic Journals Database

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 delete. This discussion is primarily about whether the subject passes WP:GNG. No keep votes have successfully argued that it does, because none of them said "here is significant coverage in reliable, independent sources." Therefore, the argument to delete is far stronger than the argument to keep. Northamerica1000 correctly points out that there is strong interest in improving the article, and while this is not a reason to keep an article, I would be willing to userfy the article to someone's userspace if they thought that improvement was possible (i.e. if it is believed that WP:GNG could be met). Contact me on my talk page if interested. -Scottywong| converse _ 20:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Academic Journals Database

edit
Academic Journals Database (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Database indexing not-for-profit open access academic journals. Article has 11 references and several external links. However, none of these establish notability. Most "references" and external links are lists of databases on some journal website showing that that particular journal is indexed in this database. Unfortunately, not only are these just in-passing mentions, all these journals are not notable or of marginal notability themselves. Those references where actually more information is given about this database than a bare mention, essentially only repeat the information present on the database's "about" page (in one case translated into Portuguese). There finally is a bunch of "references" to scientific articles (again in marginal journals) that are supposed to demonstrate that this database is used to provide "stable URLs". The only real information about this database is what is written on its "about" page, there are zero independent sources, running into problems with WP:V. A long discussion on the article's talk page did not bring any more convincing arguments for notability than "this is useful". Does not meet WP:GNG, hence: delete. Guillaume2303 (talk) 20:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 23:53, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 23:53, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:48, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Often when an article is nominated for deletion, I can quickly find references to support its notability. Not this one. Even its own "About" page is very sketchy. For example, who created it? And where is it based? RockMagnetist (talk) 00:48, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: in WP:GNG, an important point is that "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. That excludes the citations that simply mention the database. And other sources that do nothing but repeat the information on the "About" page can hardly be called "Independent". RockMagnetist (talk) 01:10, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The subject is significantly covered in secondary sources, mostly academic journals, while some just recognises it, others wrote about it in detail, but mostly in Spanish. WP:NRVE clearly says "the evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition". The many links and references were added by other editors as a result of Guillaume2303's insistence that the subject is not note worthy. —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 12:15, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As noted in the nom, those descriptions are simple repeats of the "about" page. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As indeed also noted in the nom. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article contains a few claims in the lead that I feel are not supported by the references given. I tagged them accordingly, but the tags were removed as being vandalism. For a detailed discussion, see Talk:Academic Journals Database#Vandalism. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:44, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - For reasons that I listed on the TALK PAGE. I also concur with Zenobi3000 who stated "the subject is a knowledge resource which might not be of much attention to the media, but the notability have been established through its coverage by some known academic journals like the REDVET cited in the article."
For Guillaume2303 & Johnmoor - I find it disappointing that this article is here as an Rfd. first, Johmoor started a Rfc which may or may not have been necessary. When you did not recieve the comment you liked, you seemed to want to let Guillaume2303 know about it. HOWEVER, I am more disappointed that Guillaume2303 has brought this topic here as a way to game the system. It is clear that you do not like the fact that Johnmoor disagreed with your Rfc. However, you were asked weeks ago if you thought this was a good Rfd candidate which you replied that you would have already recommended it for Rfd if you felt it was worthy. You only recommended this for Rfd AFTER Johnmoor accused you of edit waring. You then brought it here to prove a point which is extremely disruptive to Wikipedia. Instead of allowing the consensus to run on the talk page, you brought the topic here to prove a point. This is also evident as you seem to not allow anyone to be able to leave their point of view without you jumping in with a comment after (either putting down their point of view or attempting to push yours further). Either way, this article should be taken back to the talk page or simply kept according to the consensus. This is a waste of time for the administrators who have to read all of the information (including what I am writing) on the talk page and on the Rfd to simply settle a dispute that should be handled in a different forum. As such, I would recommend a speedy keep on this article so that the Rfd process is not abused. Also, you both seem like great editors according to your stats, but let's just get along and let things run. I think your efforts could be better spent on other articles than wasting your time here. I anticipate comments being left after this just like they are for every other comment on the talk page and on the Rfd page so go ahead and speak your mind.......--Morning277 (talk) 14:03, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment you bet that I am going to comment on this, given the accusations that you level against me. The way this AfD has been conducted by me (i.e. adding comments where I think they are needed) is absolutely normal and has nothing to do with the RfC. I would like to note that I only added comments after Johnmoor's !vote (for obvious reasons) and after Johnmoor added some potentially misleading text to the article. And while I have said at some point that I had not yet decided whether or not to take this to AfD because I wanted to give other editors a chance to find sources, it is, again, absolutely normal to take something to AfD if such sources are not being found. More in general, I would really appreciate if editors here could refrain from personal attacks and unfounded accusations. Everything I have written above and on the article's talk page is based in policy, I have refrained from commenting on editors and their behavior. If you can come up with reliable sources that in a non-trivial way establish notability of this database, I'll be the first to change my !vote and then you can ask for a speedy keep. Meanwhile, it would appear that "not be of much attention to the media" is about the very definition of "not notable". Thank you. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:22, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Scientific work and scientific tools are usually not being of much attention to the media, because, obviously, the scientific field lacks the glamour of other fields. Even capital works of well known scientists can lack attention of the media. As an example: everybody heard about Albert Einstein, his name is extremely promoted in the media. But I suppose 99.9% of the people don't know for which of his works he received the Nobel Price (no, it was not the Relativity Theory), because that is not of much attention to the media.
The current talk is about Academic Journals Database. With about one million records, it is one of the biggest Scientific Databases in the world. The fact that Scientific Journals proudly announce on their webpages and also in the print version of their Journals, that they passed the selection criteria of the Database and are indexed in the Database is a sign of notability. And those Journals are independent, reliable sources. What can be a better proof of notability, that the fact that the database is really used for the purpose it was designed for? - Zenobi3000 (talk) 12:06, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, you are completely correct that media are much less interested in science than in fashion, movies, or sports. Which is why even minor movie starlets and relatively obscure sports people get enough coverage in reliable sources to be notable and get an article here, whereas many deserving scientists, whose contributions to society are infinitely more important than those of some fashion model or third-league soccer player don't get that coverage and hence are not notable in an encyclopedic sense. This is regrettable, but it's a fact of life and we have to live with it. In the current case, if you look at which journals "proudly announce" being covered in this journal, you'll see that all of them are decidedly marginal journals and that most would not survive AfD here (even under the relatively relaxed WP:NJournals. As it is, we have almost nothing to base an article upon, as the database in question has not even an informative "about" page. Hence, we have severe problems with notability and verifiability. For example, the claim that the database contains 800,000 records cannot be verified independently (not that it actually matters for notability whether there are 1à or 10 million records, it's the sources about the database that count). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:38, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Final Thought - First, I need to take this article off of my watch list as it keeps jumping up and slapping me in the face. I did a final search on Google and found more information than was there a few weeks ago. Mainly, I found THIS which shows that there are currently 110 journals from Scientific Research Publishing that are now indexed on Academic Journals Database. If we are going to use the logic that it is not notable as the passing mentions of databases that are indexed are not notable themselves, then we should keep the article based on the fact that SRP uses them to index articles and SRP is notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. Not making an argument for "other stuff exists", just simply reversing the logic that was stated earlier by an editor in support of deleting the article. Finally, (yes, finally!!) there was no intention to offend any editors involved in this process. I believe that there have been logical (yes I do like to use that word a lot, thanks for noticing) arguments made by both sides and valid points have been raised. Although, I still vote for KEEP --Morning277 (talk) 20:23, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, but I cannot see how the fact that this database includes a bunch of journals from a publisher that is notable solely because of its shady practices puts much weight in the scale. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 22:04, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If the supporters of this page want to save it, they need to wake up quick. I have been involved in several AfDs, always (up to now) on the side of keeping the article, and I know what it takes to save them. Basically, it's the references. I made a serious effort to find them for this article, but I was not successful. You must realize two things:
  1. AfDs are not decided by vote counts, but by the quality of arguments - in this case, how they address the reasons for deleting an article.
  2. Quality (reliability and independence) of sources, not quantity, determine notability.
You can only hurt your cause by making personal attacks on Guillaume2303. He won't be deciding the fate of this article, an administrator will. I am certain that an administrator will be more impressed by his arguments than those of his opponents. Read his comments with more respect and find those quality sources! RockMagnetist (talk) 23:03, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I was unable to find any reliable third-party resources that provide details about this resource per WP:GNG. I do think that the website is potentially valuable to researchers, but that doesn't make it notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. The "About" page (and its reproductions) is not enough to imply notability. Phoenixred (talk) 16:06, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The database is useful (or at least appears to be at a first check), and the page describing it is not inaccurate. I'd like to know more about who runs this DB, but that's just a matter of WP:BETTER and not a reason to delete. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 06:27, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's actually quite funny: you're trawling all over WP to find straws to hold onto and I am gaming the system :-)). John, your argument boils down to WP:ILIKEIT and I can't say that in the years I have been around here, I have ever seen that argument carry any weight in AfD discussions. Throughout this discussion I have given rational, policy-based arguments. In contrast, you come with specious arguments and unfounded accusations and suggestiions that my motives are somehow unsavory and that my intention is to harm the encyclopedia (I assume you have actually read Wikipedia:Gaming the system, so that you realize what you are accusing me of). If you have no good arguments to bolster your position, then at least refrain from personal attacks, because that is getting very tiresome (and as remarked above, probably counterproductive). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 22:04, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • While it is true that several editors have said this, the unfortunate fact is that since the discussion about the notability of this database started on the talk page of the article about 1 month ago, nobody has been able to come up with any good sources. Me thinks that 1 month is ample time and if sources haven't been found by now, they probably don't exist. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:04, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete It does not meet our usual notability standards. in considering whether to make an exception on the grounds of being useful, it is necessary to consider if it actually is useful. If i were including a list of useful OA indexes for a library, and was trying to be as comprehensive as possible for anything of possible value, I wouldn't include it, and almost no libraries have done so either. I think it is pretty clear why it isn't better known & there are no actual third party references to it & so very few libraries list it at all: --it is scandalously incomplete for the major OA journals--look for example at its meagre article list for PLOS Biology. I am willing to make exceptions to notability when it serves our mission. This does not. DGG ( talk ) 04:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per DGG's rationale above, changed my !vote above to very weak keep. Also, I noticed on your user page that you're a librarian, with an MLS degree, and your argument is compelling. Nevertheless, I just can't bring myself to state an outright delete for this particular article at this time, because it's a new database founded in 2006, people have expressed a genuine interest in improving the article on the article's talk page, and also due to some of the rationales presented herein in the discussion to retain the content. Also, mass media just doesn't cover these types of topics enough, because in the age of infotainment, it just isn't profitable for corporate news media to do so. Conversely, if the database just isn't "all that" (impressive), then why would mass media/academic journals/academia etc. be compelled to report about it? Northamerica1000(talk) 05:55, 30 May 2012 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Academic_Journals_Database&oldid=1137536311"