Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journal of Trading

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 keep. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Trading

Blatant advertising, WP:CSD#G11 Spam Articles. Multiple Articles created as a marketing blitz, by WP:SPA PR account (user Consultright) with no other edits other than to seed wikipedia with articles related to Euromoney Institutional Investor, PLC.
I am also nominating the Additional Spam Journals Created by this users marketing blitz:

This is one Part of a long history of Spam and promotion on Wikipedia, See also - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Euromoney_Institutional_Investor_PLC._Spam_abuse_2
Seems to be nothing more than clear cut abuse of Wikipedia for Self-promotion and product placement. wikipedia is WP:NOT a vehicle for advertising. Hu12 (talk) 18:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as yucky, mucky spam and ban the editor in question for using WP for advertising; if possible, ban him into a doorknob. Ironholds (talk) 18:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... it's not that simple. Google News finds legitimate citations (some better than others) from and references to The Journal of Wealth Management (Google search delivers, for instance, [1], [2], [3]) and The Journal of Trading (Google search finds, for instance, [4] and [5]), and I think we should keep those. Also a keep is Journal of Investing, see [6], a couple of good hits in the first 30 hits, and Journal of Fixed Income--a few hits, not totally impressive, but passable. Journal of Portfolio Management has been around for a long time and has received extensive citation in the NY Times, Washington Post, etc.--see this, so keep also. Nothing of note for the Journal of Structured Finance, nor for the Journal of Private Equity, so those can be deleted as far as I'm concerned. I agree that the tone of some of the entries is spammy, but that's a matter of editing, and I have a very blunt axe with which I am more than willing to do that. Drmies (talk) 20:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my final assessment:

Journal of Trading - keep
Journal of Wealth Management - keep
Journal of Structured Finance - delete
Journal of Private Equity - delete
Journal of Investing - keep
Journal of Fixed Income - keep
Journal of Portfolio Management - keep Drmies (talk) 20:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- BTW, Hu12, I looked at the spam case, and I won't deny that you have a point; still, I'm at least in part in agreement with DGG, whose point (on the user's talk page) I interpret to be that spammers can produce steak also, if you'll pardon the stretched metaphor. Drmies (talk) 20:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at least some of them. Two reasons: first, I agree with Drmies, who's talking sense as usual, and second, I'm reluctant to endorse deletions of articles about specialist journals in any case. These journals could well be future reliable sources for other articles and Wikipedia should know about them. (I'd like to see a guideline, eventually, that there should be a presumption to keep articles about verifiable, specialist trade and academic journals.)--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 14:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that's a good idea--given Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journal of Black Psychology, for instance, which you witnessed closely also. My personal guideline is that the title of an academic journal ought to show up in Google Books, in some sort of relevant and notable form/citation; for this kind of trade journal, if some journal or article (esp. an editorial, such as one of the examples I found, above) is referenced in for instance the Washington Post, then that's notable. Esp. the suggestion of a 'presumption of notability' is well taken, S Marshall. Journals can't be speedied, can they? Drmies (talk) 15:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take that tangent to Drmies' talk page--it's well worth pursuing but here isn't the place. Sorry for the digression. --S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mea culpa. Drmies (talk) 15:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. The nominator has only made ad hominem arguments, without stating any valid reason for deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep COI is not reason for deletion. I am slowly working through them properly. The first two I checked were clearly notable, and as for the others, if they';re not, I'll renominate them. There is a general point here.: many publishers have added articles on their journals. Many companies on their products. If they do it right, they can help build valid content. Sometimes they don't add the right content, and it needs to be fixed--this contributor came near, except he thought the list of all the editorial board would help the articles, and it doesn't. Sometimes they add total junk, and then we throw it out, no one faster than myself, but in general all peer reviewed journals that show up significantly in libraries and citations are appropriate for Wikipedia. These are however not exactly peer-reviewed academic journals in the usual sense, but practitioner oriented journals, a sort of cross between the ordinary journal and the professional magazine--this makes the citation criteria a little trickier. The best guide for dealing with this question in general is Durova's Business FAQ (which also applies to non-profit organisations). I have as little tolerance for spam as the nominator. I have almost as many unjustified complaints as he about what I've speedy deleted as G11. I've even had a few justified ones, where I've judged by the apparent nature of the contributor and not taken adequate account of whether there is an article behind the verbiage. I'm not criticizing him about this--I support his work, except when he gets too enthusiastic. I understand, though, why one would--I find that looking at newpages excessively or screening specifically for spam gets me also too enthusiastic a deletor. However, I do have a complaint about the nomination: I alerted Hu on his talk p. that I was working on these, and asked him to give me some time to fix the remaining articles, but instead he nominated them for deletion a few hours later & without notifying me. That's his right, but I would not treat him that way. DGG (talk) 05:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Within minutes of these initialy being deleted, you pounced on the deleting Admin to undelete by using your standard "overenthusiastic" rhetoric^[7] (as above), and only upon his insistance did you notify on my talk page. While there are many, many things you and I agree on, it saddens me that you consistently choose to focus on the percieved differences. I digress. Wikipedia is not a junkyard for unverifiable, and unsourced "Journal" Spam. If you plan to work on these, perhaps your userspace is a more appropriate place for these.--Hu12 (talk) 20:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG. --Crusio (talk) 09:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Such obvious abuse and exploitation of Wikipedia as illustrated on this large of a scale is in direct conflict of our Wikipedia:Five pillars and is subject to deletion as Blatant advertising. Euromoney Institutional Investor, PLC is using Wikipedia for Self-promotion and an an advertising platform. This entirely undermines wikipedias neutral point of view and suggesting that such non-organically created articles be kept damages the credibility and future success of Wikipedia.--Hu12 (talk) 20:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The solution to any non-NPOV content is to edit articles to make them neutral, not, if they are about notable subjects, to delete the articles. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree when they are legitimate articles, however there is little evidence these journals are notable (other than a sockpuppet PR marketing account claiming they are).--Hu12 (talk) 21:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree--there is evidence for a number of these journals that they are notable, as I've suggested above in some detail. Drmies (talk) 21:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The publisher, EII, is making up for our deficiencies. At least some of these journals are notable. There are thousands of notable peer-reviewed journals not yet in WP, and we need some help. Similar is true in most fields of serious (albeit commercial) endeavor. Only in popular culture and computers and a few things where there are hobbyists do we even come to half the number of articles we need. Yes, we must review the articles they or any other involved person submit. Obviously we will remove true spam, as when they start introducing external references to their stuff in all sorts of places (which this company has not done, though other publishers have; banning them stops them temporarily, but the way of stopping them permanently is to speak to someone there with enough authority.) There are much worse than this. For a journal to be present in hundreds of libraries is notable. Articles about notable products are not spam. They often contain spam, which can be removed. Spam and COI are never reasons for nominating for deletion, The intent for which an article is submitted is not relevant. We assume good faith--even with people who are paid money for what they do here.DGG (talk) 22:57, 4 February 2009 (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.