369:
meet our inclusion standards. But that's the way society is (that athlete will also likely earn multiple times the income of even a top-level academic). WP cannot do otherwise than reflect society. So if their are sources on a supermarket novel, it gets an article and a journal (for which we have an essay, NJournals, to make it easier to pass the bar then GNG) does not get an article. --
850:
listed in its first few years. One of the criteria for consideration is "a publication history of at least two years" and even then it has to be proposed for inclusion and considered by a committee that can take another year. So not being in Scopus is exactly what should be expected, and is not an indication of lack of notability.
489:. And Scopus et al. only include a journal after it has shown too have some impact, their equivalent of our "notability". As this has only just started, there are no sources indicating any notability. This needs to be deleted and once (if ever) notability is clear it can be re-created, we don't do that the other way around. --
832:- I've been watching this for a bit, and RandyKitty's most recent comment pushed me over the edge. If the journal is not indexed by even the most inclusive of sources, and cannot otherwise meet GNG (per GreenC's analysis), then it has not established notability yet. Perhaps one day, but it seems not yet.
368:
is not the strongest argument. Yes, it's irritating those supermarket novels. Compare it to an 18-year old athlete who's considered notable after even the most modest accomplishments whereas academics who spent their whole lives researching and publishing don't get any coverage and therefore don't
849:
In the section above, RandyKitty claims "If it's not in Scopus, you can pretty safely assume that it is not notable yet", and others have taken that comment seriously. However, Scopus does not operate that way. It isn't in Scopus because it is new, and it is very rare (or never) that a journal is
626:. I agree with Zero. This journal is indeed notable and certainly worthy of an article. The sourcing demonstrates its notability and legitimacy. I don't think we should have to wait years until a new journal from an important academic press is indexed by SCOPUS and others.
543:
All indications are that it's a legitimate enterprise, but without indexing in a selective database or in-depth coverage by secondary sources (say, if it had an innovative funding scheme or peer-review system that attracted attention), we don't have grounds for an article
209:
431:
387:
It should have an article because a peer-reviewed academic journal that has already published 21 papers is worthy of an article. If reflecting society was all that
Knowledge was supposed to do, we should close up shop.
557:
143:
138:
147:
809:
I had this pegged as a No
Consensus close and it still might end up there, but there are some unresolved discussion points in the debate which may allow a consensus either way to form. Relisting a second
905:? I think that GreenC has shown pretty clearly that none of the current sources satisfy GNG, and the Penn Arts article added since then is just a statement from the editor and obviously not independent.
548:. 21 papers is actually a very small number of papers as far as academic publications go, and we'd need many more than the handful of existing citations to them to argue that the journal is influential.
203:
130:
401:... Do you really think that instead of looking for independent reliable sources we should leave it to WP editors to decide what should get an article ("worthy") and what not ("unworthy")? --
344:. This is a serious peer-reviewed academic journal published by a university press with an excellent editorial board. The reason that it is not indexed by resources like SCOPUS is that they
700:
I'm amazed at how much support Zero0000's arguments are getting. Classic don't do this in AfD arguments. Suggest those who want to keep find more and better sources. Of the current sources:
432:
https://academic.oup.com/journals/search-results?page=1&q=%22Capitalism%3A%20A%20Journal%20of%20History%20and%20Economics%22&fl_SiteID=5567&SearchSourceType=1&allJournals=1
281:
896:. If that means that we don't immediately have an article on every journal that will end up one day demonstrating notability as soon as it starts, then that's just part of the process.
778:- per the above policy based !votes of RandyKitty, Xoreaster, and David Eppstein. Doesn't meet notability criteria currently. Just because it exists, does not make it notable.
863:
What you write about inclusion in Scopus is not wrong, but your conclusion is. Scopus has not (yet?) decided whether this will be included. Apart from having a well-functioning
757:
journals. If it's not in Scopus, you can pretty safely assume that it is not notable yet, except for the extremely rare case that a journal meets GNG before it gets indexed.
134:
260:
that I took to AfD) with reason "Announcement by IAS demonstrates notability". A brief press release is far from sufficient to meet GNG, so PROD reason still stands. Hence:
301:
170:
509:, basically. Can be revisited once notability is actually established. The composition of the editorial board, or the notability of its published is irrelevant per
321:
126:
78:
677:
224:
191:
117:
102:
987:
959:
934:
914:
880:
854:
841:
822:
789:
770:
737:
689:
668:
635:
618:
587:
535:
498:
474:
443:
410:
392:
378:
356:
333:
313:
293:
273:
72:
885:
Yes, it takes time for sources to properly assess a new publication. It is just the nature of the beast that we can't get ahead of our sources. As
185:
181:
867:(mine just broke), we cannot predict whether it will eventually be included. It is published by a respected, but small university press and
348:
index journals in their first few years of operation. (I know this from my editorial experience with several journals.) A supermarket novel
430:,think this needs to be kept and re-addressed in a year or so time to see if it is being indexed. Articles are already being reference -
231:
66:
97:
90:
17:
197:
522:
869:
even large, well-established publishers produce the occasional dud that folds after a few years, without leaving much trace
976:
439:
111:
107:
798:
566:
1004:
365:
40:
761:
is not a database but an access platform ("aggregator") and as such not independent: it sells subscriptions. --
614:
435:
59:
971:
lack of GNG or NJOURNALS pass. Can be recreated later if independent RS coverage is published in future. (
910:
837:
510:
329:
309:
1000:
553:
454:
257:
36:
906:
833:
707:
1. ias.edu .. press release with a press contact (upper right side). Not independent in-depth coverage.
325:
305:
955:
947:
876:
766:
664:
652:
494:
470:
406:
374:
289:
269:
886:
610:
602:
245:
217:
902:
518:
54:
864:
685:
656:
631:
598:
545:
506:
486:
398:
253:
86:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
999:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
972:
818:
730:
549:
530:
751:, the least selective of the "selective databases" mentioned in NJournals, currently lists
951:
872:
868:
762:
660:
490:
466:
402:
370:
285:
265:
352:
with two reviews in trade review rags but an academic journal has to jump through hoops?
578:
526:
927:
851:
779:
719:
606:
514:
427:
389:
353:
249:
758:
681:
627:
349:
164:
981:
931:
814:
723:
651:
as required by GNG? In the absence of those, how does your !vote differ from
676:
Note: This discussion has been included in the
Article Rescue Squadron's
240:
Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable new journal. Not indexed in any
748:
485:
Nobody says that this is not a serious journal, but at this point we
52:. After a pair of relists, I just really don't see a consensus here.
946:: which two sources cover the journal in-depth so that GNG is met?
752:
995:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
801:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
569:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
901:
My question is what criteria you think it does satisfy from
710:
2. MUSE - database entry. Is every journal on MUSE notable?
718:
Currently there are zero sources that show notability per
160:
156:
152:
282:
list of
Academic journals-related deletion discussions
216:
926:
it's well-sourced and reputably produced. It passes
397:
Never thought I'd see an admin argue that we should
813:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
647:: Could you please tell us which 2 sources provide
575:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
609:-level in-depth coverage in independent sources. —
244:databases, no independent sources. Does not meet
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1007:). No further edits should be made to this page.
487:don't even know whether this is going to survive
320:Note: This discussion has been included in the
300:Note: This discussion has been included in the
280:Note: This discussion has been included in the
302:list of Economics-related deletion discussions
127:Capitalism: A Journal of History and Economics
79:Capitalism: A Journal of History and Economics
230:
8:
322:list of History-related deletion discussions
118:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
675:
453:: Agree with Zero and Davidstewartharvey.
319:
299:
279:
678:list of content for rescue consideration
890:
399:keep an article because it is "worthy"
713:3. Masthead - not indepedent coverage
7:
256:." Article dePRODded (by creator of
24:
103:Introduction to deletion process
950:is just so much hand waving. --
893:lagging indicator of notability
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
460:09:25, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
1:
771:23:00, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
738:22:43, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
690:22:12, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
669:22:35, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
649:independent in-depth coverage
636:21:50, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
619:17:38, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
588:13:41, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
558:15:45, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
536:02:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
499:09:58, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
475:13:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
444:09:19, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
411:11:17, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
393:11:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
379:10:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
357:07:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
334:00:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
314:00:08, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
294:22:19, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
274:22:18, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
93:(AfD)? Read these primers!
1024:
988:22:18, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
73:20:14, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
960:22:40, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
935:19:21, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
915:22:15, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
881:09:46, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
855:04:29, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
842:02:46, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
823:14:13, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
790:21:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
997:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
258:another journal article
91:Articles for deletion
605:and no evidence of
252:. Article creation
807:Relisting comment:
465:: blocked sock. --
436:Davidstewartharvey
366:WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS
825:
692:
590:
586:
477:
336:
316:
296:
108:Guide to deletion
98:How to contribute
1015:
984:
812:
804:
802:
786:
783:
754:over 41 THOUSAND
735:
728:
585:
583:
576:
574:
572:
570:
534:
461:
235:
234:
220:
168:
150:
88:
69:
64:
57:
34:
1023:
1022:
1018:
1017:
1016:
1014:
1013:
1012:
1011:
1005:deletion review
982:
891:Knowledge is a
826:
797:
795:
784:
781:
731:
724:
591:
579:
577:
565:
563:
513:
511:WP:NOTINHERITED
177:
141:
125:
122:
85:
82:
67:
60:
55:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1021:
1019:
1010:
1009:
991:
990:
965:
964:
963:
962:
938:
937:
920:
919:
918:
917:
898:
897:
883:
858:
857:
844:
811:
805:
794:
793:
792:
773:
741:
740:
716:
715:
714:
711:
708:
702:
701:
694:
693:
673:
672:
671:
639:
638:
621:
611:David Eppstein
573:
562:
561:
560:
538:
501:
479:
478:
447:
446:
420:
419:
418:
417:
416:
415:
414:
413:
382:
381:
360:
359:
338:
337:
317:
297:
238:
237:
174:
121:
120:
115:
105:
100:
83:
81:
76:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1020:
1008:
1006:
1002:
998:
993:
992:
989:
986:
985:
978:
974:
970:
967:
966:
961:
957:
953:
949:
948:WP:ITSNOTABLE
945:
942:
941:
940:
939:
936:
933:
929:
925:
922:
921:
916:
912:
908:
904:
900:
899:
895:
894:
888:
884:
882:
878:
874:
870:
866:
862:
861:
860:
859:
856:
853:
848:
845:
843:
839:
835:
831:
828:
827:
824:
820:
816:
808:
803:
800:
791:
788:
787:
777:
774:
772:
768:
764:
760:
756:
755:
750:
746:
743:
742:
739:
736:
734:
729:
727:
721:
717:
712:
709:
706:
705:
704:
703:
699:
696:
695:
691:
687:
683:
679:
674:
670:
666:
662:
658:
654:
653:WP:ITSNOTABLE
650:
646:
643:
642:
641:
640:
637:
633:
629:
625:
622:
620:
616:
612:
608:
604:
600:
596:
593:
592:
589:
584:
582:
571:
568:
559:
555:
551:
547:
542:
539:
537:
532:
528:
524:
520:
516:
512:
508:
505:
502:
500:
496:
492:
488:
484:
481:
480:
476:
472:
468:
464:
459:
458:
455:AnotherEditor
452:
449:
448:
445:
441:
437:
433:
429:
425:
422:
421:
412:
408:
404:
400:
396:
395:
394:
391:
386:
385:
384:
383:
380:
376:
372:
367:
364:
363:
362:
361:
358:
355:
351:
347:
343:
340:
339:
335:
331:
327:
323:
318:
315:
311:
307:
303:
298:
295:
291:
287:
283:
278:
277:
276:
275:
271:
267:
263:
259:
255:
251:
247:
243:
233:
229:
226:
223:
219:
215:
211:
208:
205:
202:
199:
196:
193:
190:
187:
183:
180:
179:Find sources:
175:
172:
166:
162:
158:
154:
149:
145:
140:
136:
132:
128:
124:
123:
119:
116:
113:
109:
106:
104:
101:
99:
96:
95:
94:
92:
87:
80:
77:
75:
74:
71:
70:
65:
63:
58:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
996:
994:
980:
968:
943:
923:
907:MarginalCost
892:
865:crystal ball
846:
834:MarginalCost
829:
806:
796:
780:
775:
759:Project MUSE
753:
744:
732:
725:
697:
659:? Thanks. --
648:
644:
623:
603:WP:NJOURNALS
594:
580:
564:
540:
503:
482:
462:
456:
450:
423:
345:
341:
326:MarginalCost
306:MarginalCost
261:
254:way too soon
246:WP:NJournals
241:
239:
227:
221:
213:
206:
200:
194:
188:
178:
84:
61:
53:
50:no consensus
49:
47:
31:
28:
932:User:Namiba
903:WP:NJOURNAL
426:Agree with
204:free images
952:Randykitty
873:Randykitty
763:Randykitty
661:Randykitty
657:WP:ILIKEIT
599:WP:TOOSOON
581:Sandstein
550:XOR'easter
507:WP:TOOSOON
491:Randykitty
467:Randykitty
403:Randykitty
371:Randykitty
286:Randykitty
266:Randykitty
1001:talk page
242:selective
62:Phightins
37:talk page
1003:or in a
944:Question
799:Relisted
645:Question
567:Relisted
515:Headbomb
171:View log
112:glossary
39:or in a
847:Comment
745:Comment
698:Comment
682:Thriley
628:Thriley
483:Comment
210:WP refs
198:scholar
144:protect
139:history
89:New to
983:buidhe
969:Delete
928:WP:GNG
830:Delete
815:Daniel
776:Delete
749:Scopus
720:WP:GNG
607:WP:GNG
595:Delete
541:Delete
504:Delete
350:passes
262:Delete
250:WP:GNG
182:Google
148:delete
889:says
810:time.
726:Green
722:. --
346:never
225:JSTOR
186:books
165:views
157:watch
153:links
16:<
956:talk
924:Keep
911:talk
887:WP:N
877:talk
871:. --
852:Zero
838:talk
819:talk
785:5969
782:Onel
767:talk
686:talk
665:talk
655:and
632:talk
624:Keep
615:talk
601:for
554:talk
495:talk
471:talk
463:Note
451:Keep
440:talk
428:Zero
424:Keep
407:talk
390:Zero
375:talk
354:Zero
342:Keep
330:talk
310:talk
290:talk
270:talk
218:FENS
192:news
161:logs
135:talk
131:edit
930:.--
546:yet
457:144
248:or
232:TWL
169:– (
979:)
975:·
958:)
913:)
879:)
840:)
821:)
769:)
747::
688:)
680:.
667:)
634:)
617:)
597:.
556:)
529:·
525:·
521:·
497:)
473:)
442:)
434:.
409:)
377:)
332:)
324:.
312:)
304:.
292:)
284:.
272:)
264:.
212:)
163:|
159:|
155:|
151:|
146:|
142:|
137:|
133:|
56:Go
977:c
973:t
954:(
909:(
875:(
836:(
817:(
765:(
733:C
684:(
663:(
630:(
613:(
552:(
533:}
531:b
527:p
523:c
519:t
517:{
493:(
469:(
438:(
405:(
373:(
328:(
308:(
288:(
268:(
236:)
228:·
222:·
214:·
207:·
201:·
195:·
189:·
184:(
176:(
173:)
167:)
129:(
114:)
110:(
68:!
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.