Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Content Factor

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Content Factor (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)

The "content factor" is a proposed "new" metric to measure performance of academic journals. It is, in fact, identical to the "total cites" metric that ISI has reported in its Journal Citation Reports for many years (with as trivial modification that the number of citations is divided by 1000). The concept has been introduced in an article in PLoS ONE that was published just a few days ago and has yet to be cited elsewhere. In summary: no independent sources, no indication that this "new" metric will gain any acceptance, no indication that this meets WP:GNG. Hence: Delete. Guillaume2303 (talk) 20:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG Topher385 (talk) 22:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

content factor is total cites but presented in a format (units comparable to impact factor)that make it immediately comprehensible; moreover, it was shown to correlate with perceived importance of journals. Author above, for reasons unclear, believes that an entity must not only clear peer review but now be cited. That cycle may take years; this paper is a week old. The question is: is what is presented valid, true and interesting (to maybe just a few readers, but some)? Wikipedia is, after all, a reference source--not a collection of best ideas, favored ideas or pet ideas. I cannot see how the cause of knowledge is advanced by deletion. "the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence" said justice brandeis. If the author above feels so strongly about this, perhaps adding "more speech", in the form of "Some may criticize content factor as identical to the "total cites" metric that ISI has reported in its Journal Citation Reports for many years (with the modification that the number of citations is divided by 1000)". And others, perhaps I, would add, "yet, it has also been suggested, that this modification might makes it immediately comprehensible to those who traffic in impact factor".

But to propose deletion? Shameful. 4081xsn (talk) 03:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)— 4081xsn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I think this article is short and to the point with something valid to say. Guillaume2303 is voicing objections that sound more like what a peer reviewer would write if he were asked to review the original article describing content factor. (Maybe he was a reviewer, and he was overruled; hence the vehemence). In any case, we should have a measure of respect for the peer review process. This entry seems to describe well and succinctly a concept that is now part of the peer review literature. It belongs here. (And as a side point, complaining that a concept is "yet to be cited elsewhere" is fatuous, owing to the fact (as Guillaume2303 must know) most papers are cited like zero times, ever. What is his standard? That a concept must not only be in a peer reviewed paper but cited 2 times? Or maybe cited one time, as long as he likes the journal but three if not??) DorothyWolf (talk) 03:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)— DorothyWolf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Delete. Just a proposal, and the references, though peer-reviewed, only state what problems this proposal aims to resolve. No mention of the solution itself there. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It seems that 4081xsn and DorothyWolf are very new Wikipedia editors who do not yet understand that Wikipedia articles must be about notable topics, and the the word "notable" has a very specific meaning here on Wikipedia. It is not "shameful" to ask that Wikipedia articles comply with Wikipedia's own policies and guidelines. Our General notability guideline states that "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article". The article appears to be about recently-published original research, which is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Incidentally, the link to the published research is not working. There does not seem to be any significant coverage of this topic in independent, reliable sources. Unless such sources can be furnished, this article should be deleted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

new-guilty as charged. but i have been reading and writing for more than 60 of my 70 years and one thing I remember reading many years ago was Hamlet, Act III, scene II, calling to mind Guillaume2303's "protesting too much". If he is right and this factor is really old goods in a new box then he can't complain that there are no references to it--by his logic, all reference to "total citations" would by transitive association point to this too. So maybe the remedy is to add a line to that effect? I see no entry in wikipedia for "journal metric: total citations" or anything like it. If content factor is really total citations, and total citations is so notable to unseat the novelty of this concept, then this applies. if the factor is NOT total citations, then it is new--but as G2303 says, the idea behind it is old (and wikipedia worthy on that).

DorothyWolf (talk) 04:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then that means we could use an article on the idea behind Content Factor, but in which Content Factor itself is not mentioned. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 04:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

my 2 cents: plosone counts as a reliable source independent of the subject Pierre11691 (talk) 04:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)— Pierre11691 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

PLoS ONE is the subject's publisher, therefore in this case it is not independent of the subject. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 04:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment With all due respect to the new editors flocking to this debate, please be aware that recommendations and comments not based on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines will be discounted by the closing administrator. Please try to read and understand the links to policies and guidelines that I provided above. The journal article simply cannot be considered an independent source, as it is that article where the concept was proposed and advanced by the people who created it. That journal article is a primary source. It is not independent. If tomorrow's New York Times publishes an article on the topic, that would be an independent source. This has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not the idea is a good one, but rather whether or not the topic is a notable one. So far, it isn't. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Selective merge to Impact Factor#Other measures of impact. Being mentioned in one article is clearly not sufficient for notability. This article is short and largely concerned with criticising impact factor, which makes a merge even more suitable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:47, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I would appreciate if you could tell us exactly what can be merged. The criticism of the IF is already covered much better in the IF article. And adding a non-notable new name for "total cites" to the IF article hardly seems appropriate. Thanks. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.realclearscience.com/journal_club/2012/08/03/ranking_the_scientific_journals_106341.html is a secondary source 4081xsn (talk) 19:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

good point Guilaume2303 (talk) 19:50, 6 August 2012 (UTC) — Guilaume2303 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• PLease note that the above editor is not me. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 20:11, 6 August 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.