518:, when we are discussing its possible deletion? Secondly, it is factually inaccurate to say that in that third party interview "in that long interview, the journal is only mentioned because the interviewee mentions it once himself". The very introductory line by that third party website mentions the name of this journal, and throughout that interview, the interviewer conducts his Q&A session on the basis of this journal alone. This kind of falsehood will bring this debate nowhere. True, that is not a "dotcom" site. But Skepoet is a noteworthy name in alternative humanities, and this segment of 'margnalia of radical thinking' where the journal editor's interview is published, earned some substantial critical acclaim among radical humanities groups. We cannot always have dotcom as the sole basis of accountability. Further, this journal is clearly assigned an ISSN by the Indian authorities in New Delhi keeping in line with the international policies, and so why exactly that should not be sufficient, and why do we need its index to be ratified by selective databases which we all know may not be favorable to this kind of new area studies? Lastly, people associated with premier Indian institutions do not bestow on this journal an inherited notability as it is being funnily suspected ("notability is not inherited"). Their association simply proves that this journal is accountable, and is peer-run and peer reviewed. Now can please
430:
culture of what they call the 'Indic
Bengali' people (looks like they are studying the Indian Bengalis), and this journal does not charge any fees for publication as per their journal policies (available on their website), therefore they cannot possibly be a predatory journal (going by the definition of predatory journals). So far as that indexing in online directories is concerned, they often do not do any justice for humanities journal, that too published in a such a new area studies. The stuff within this article is called promotional, but it appears they have only given their aims and objectives a fair hearing. The deletion of their editorial team by
775:"We are trying to promote Bengali history on wikipedia by authoring articles." Great. "We are working on the Jayadeva birth controversy, in order to dispel doubts about the birthplace of Jayadeva, the poet of Gitgobindo." Terrible and takes us back to this AfD. The birthplace of Jayadeva is heavily disputed, see ]. But here we have an 'academic journal' run by people who are dedicated to dispel doubts - that is to argue that he was born in Bengali and I would guess to use their journals as sources to push this position. Please read all of
481:. Second, it's not really independent, as all it gives is the opinion of the editor on his own publication. And third, in that long interview, the journal is only mentioned because the interviewee mentions it once himself. Really not significant coverage, no matter how you look at it. Nobody said this was a predatory journal, just re-read my comments to Peterkingiron more carefully. Ad for the editorial team, it does not matter how important these people are, because
333:-- If this really is a peer-reviewed academic journal, we ought to allow an article on it. The fact that has not yet been picked by the citation indices merely indicates that those indices are out of date. inclusion depends on the compiler of the index taking out a subscription and the journal being successful in its marketing. I suspect that Western journals are not that good at picking up journals on subjects in the humanities.
371:, and they are absolutely not related to whether a journal's marketing is successful. Scopus is one of the less selective databases, but from what I have seen of this journal, I strongly doubt that it will qualify for Scopus any time soon. Indexes don't take subscriptions at all. Journals are always keen on being included in them because it drives readership (which is why OMICS tried suggesting that some of its journals were
614:" argument, and goes directly counter to the fundamental consensus position valid across all notability discussions, that notability is a matter of coverage in independent reliable sources. In the present case, the amount of documented coverage in independent sources is precisely zero. As such, Carrite's vote is blatantly contrary to community consensus and must be disregarded in closing this AfD.
60:, exists, however, no argument was advanced that this journal meets it. The primary keep argument was an IAR argument for strongly leaning to inclusion for things we might use as sources within the encyclopedia, and I've (rarely) seen a similar argument get some weight in past AfDs, but I did not, here, find support for that argument strong enough to undermine consensus. --
363:
available in institutional repositories or on authors" own websites, as long as those last. 2/ The citation indices are out of date. Nope, this journal is just too young. Citation indices rarely include new journals before they have shown A/ some staying power and B/ has been shown to make an impact as evidenced by articles in other journals citing it.
526:
stop making these aggressive removals to this journal's wiki page and let it remain in its original form till this debate is over and a final call about its deletion is taken? Being malformed repeatedly by those clamoring for its deletion is surely a case of biased editing. If you think its should be
485:. In any case, as long as there are no sources for a subject, we cannot have an article on it. For academic journals we often take a shortcut by accepting indexing in selective databases as significant coverage, but we don't have that here either. As for the hostile editing, please have a look at our
429:
This journal started in
February 2012 which is not very recent. They have five published issues published at regular intervals which followed a biannual frequency. The links to the complete published issues are available in this article. This journal claims to be a pioneer in studying the history and
403:
stubs. The journal under scrutiny here is still very young. It is impossible to decide at this moment whether it will stay. There is no coverage in third-party sources. We have no means of deciding that it is high-quality or only publishes crap or something in between. Article creation is, in short,
434:
was surely a case of hostile editing, because that segment alone proves that this journal is run by some respectable academics from some premier academic institutions in India, and that it is peer-run and peer-reviewed, and that it is an accountable journal. This is also incorrect to say that thir
472:
2012 is pretty recent for a journal in my eyes, but if you want to argue that that is long enough, you should realize that that makes the failure to be included in any database even more egregious. I have given above in my long answer to
Peterkingiron examples of databases that include humanities
375:
indexed). Every publisher I've ever heard of will be more then happy to send them a free subscription in order to be selected. Authors don't like to publish in journals that are not indexed for the same reason: lack of visibility of their work. 3/ "Western journals are not that good at picking up
362:
and its hundreds of journals). B/ Other journals get started and disappear again after a short time. If this happens with a major publisher, the journal usually remains accessible anyway. If it was self-published, it may disappear without a trace, with perhaps only a few individual articles still
546:
reasons why that interview is not "significant coverage". "Aggressive removals": all content is available through the article history for the duration of this AfD. There is no reason to keep that spam "live". "The very introductory line": Yep, indeed: it gives the name of the editor, followed by
398:
are predatory (thereby basically giving him the right to decide what goes into WP or not) and write an article on any other journal as soon as it is established, in the end we still would be left with articles on journals that disappeared without much trace after a short period, leaving us with
393:
selective index, we say that it is notable, so our coverage should eventually be equal to the sum of all such indexes. I don't see, given point 1, why we should be even more relaxed. All predatory journals claim to be peer-reviewed. We don't have the means or the expertise, most of the time, to
578:. Articles on scholarly journals should be presumed notable; we owe it to our readers to allow them to investigate the sources we are citing to document other WP articles. Even if there is little more the age and location of this particular journal, that is a start. Stubs do have value.
645:
You can't be serious. Yet another person who thinks they can get away with a blatant "I like it" vote, without any basis in project-wide consensus and policy. Nothing on
Knowledge can ever be notable without substantial independent coverage in reliable sources.
800:
which also gives me cause for alarm. There certainly was COI and, yes, it did look like the start of a walled garden. We don't need this sort of thing and Mark viking's point about GNG/TOOSOON is entirely valid. Maybe one day ... although I doubt it. -
435:
party sources were not there in the article. This journal's editor has been interviewed by a third party site, the link of which is there in this article, which clearly proves that this journal is noted by some people other than who are working in it.
747:
After my cleanup of the article (stub), the COI issue is not really important any more as far as the contents go. The motivation to create one article to support the other really smacks of the potential beginning of a walled garden, of course.
795:
Having looked at all of the various links above, this appears actually to be a publication by a pressure group rather than a serious academic exercise. Shoptodina describes itself as a nationalist body and its BISOS offshoot is described as
669:
indices. While we must be sensitive to possible systemic biases against journals outside the publishing mainstream, except for an ISSN, there is just no secondary acknowledgement or coverage, period. It may be this is a case of
171:
354:, I'm sorry, but I think you misunderstand several things here. I'll try to go through it in order. 1/ Not all peer-reviewed journals should have an article, for many reasons. Here are a few: A/ Some of the are so-called
721:(which was also created by User:Tamalmou)... in that article it is mentioned in order to support a somewhat shaky claim that Bengali Studies is considered a notable academic discipline (to quote from that article: "
394:
decide whether that is correct or not. Unless they have generated significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources, we should not include such journals. Even if we should decide that only journals on
542:
academic journals should be kept and I gave arguments why that is not feasible. PLease read his and mine comments. "ISSN": having an ISSN is absolutely and completely trivial. "Interview": I gave
212:(PROD was removed by page creator, who has been COI-revert-warring to include hugely overblown amounts of promotional fluff, and who has now been blocked for making legal threats too.)
165:
596:: I urge the closing admin to read the arguments presented here: Should we indeed do away with GNG and NJournals in the case of academic journals, whatever their merits? --
267:
124:
287:
97:
92:
101:
247:
131:
709:. It turns out that he is the founder of the Journal. Thus, there is an element of self-promotion. I will also draw your attention to the fact that the
358:, that obviously are not notable enough to be covered (unless they are so bad that they cause a scandal and get coverage because of that; see for instance
84:
202:
As per earlier PROD nomination by another editor: "Non-notable new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet
514:
I am sorry, if this was not a predatory journal (as per its proclaimed policies on its website), then why did you even bring that topic in this debate
389:, you'll see that our inclusion criteria are actually more relaxed than those of the selective citation indexes. If a journal is included in even just
769:
I still see no evidence this meets our criteria. On a side issue, I note that the organisation that publishes the journal is going to create more
376:
journals on subjects in the humanities". Sorry, but that is incorrect, too. There are big indexes specialized in the humanities (such as the
454:
186:
650:
618:
474:
217:
153:
56:, there is no guideline or policy that would apply here providing specific guidance on the notability of academic journals. An essay,
377:
458:
355:
772:
and that its founder is the creator of the article. That might be all fine and dandy, except that they actually have an agenda.
665:
I was unable to find any evidence of multiple in-depth reliable sources. I was also unable to find any evidence of indexing in
17:
647:
615:
523:
473:
journals, the argument that there is a bias against humanities is simply wrong. As for the interview, I assume that you mean
214:
368:
147:
810:
787:
757:
738:
691:
653:
640:
621:
605:
587:
560:
502:
417:
342:
325:
299:
279:
259:
238:
220:
66:
143:
88:
193:
829:
723:
This field is considered to have been formally recognised within academia in recent times with the launch of the
636:
631:- Academic journals can be presumed notable unless proved otherwise. Newness does not mean that isn't notable.
367:, for example, is a database that might well cover a journal like this one. You can see their inclusion criteria
40:
714:
80:
72:
575:
532:
450:
440:
318:
527:
deleted, why are you even bothering to edit it, and why cannot you simply wait till it is deleted? Thank you.
547:"editor of etc". Really in-depth coverage, that. Finally, if you don't have any arguments that are based in
338:
482:
359:
825:
687:
159:
36:
783:
753:
632:
601:
556:
498:
413:
234:
64:
679:
528:
446:
436:
386:
312:
203:
179:
57:
734:
351:
334:
671:
611:
583:
405:
295:
275:
255:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
824:
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
806:
683:
779:
749:
718:
597:
552:
519:
515:
494:
409:
230:
61:
682:. I could not find any appropriate merge targets, either, hence recommend deletion. --
778:
as it appears this organisation hopes to have an impact on a number of our articles.
730:
706:
702:
675:
592:
Of course stubs have value. However, please read my response to
Peterkingiron above.
490:
486:
395:
207:
53:
705:
that needs to be taken into account with this article... the article was created by
579:
478:
291:
271:
251:
776:
773:
118:
802:
400:
551:
policy, then stop wasting our time and stop making personal attacks. Thanks. --
408:. I hope this clarifies the issues and apologize for the lengthy response... --
372:
727:
in the year 2012 by Tamal
Dasgupta who teaches at University of Delhi
364:
818:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
52:. No compelling argument was advanced that the subject meets
797:
770:
674:. Without such coverage, the journal fails notability per
380:, but there are also smaller, more specialized indexes).
114:
110:
106:
178:
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
832:). No further edits should be made to this page.
477:. First of all, it's a blog and therefore not a
268:list of Literature-related deletion discussions
538:Very briefly: "predatory": Peter argued that
443:) 21:52, 29 June 2014 (Indian Standard Time)
192:
8:
535:) 23:15, 29 June 2014 (Indian Standard Time)
288:list of History-related deletion discussions
286:Note: This debate has been included in the
266:Note: This debate has been included in the
246:Note: This debate has been included in the
285:
265:
248:list of India-related deletion discussions
245:
729:"). Again... self-promotion is at play.
7:
610:Carrite's vote is nothing but an "
378:Arts and Humanities Citation Index
24:
479:reliable source in the WP sense
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
701:- There is a serious case of
574:per the policy and pillar of
487:journal article writing guide
483:notability is not inherited
849:
725:Journal of Bengali Studies
717:article is the article on
715:Journal of Bengali Studies
81:Journal of Bengali Studies
73:Journal of Bengali Studies
713:other article to link to
561:19:07, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
524:Future Perfect at Sunrise
503:17:34, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
418:10:25, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
343:22:09, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
326:19:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
300:18:40, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
280:18:40, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
260:18:40, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
239:10:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
221:08:54, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
821:Please do not modify it.
811:15:27, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
788:14:12, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
758:14:15, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
739:12:48, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
692:23:17, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
654:22:00, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
641:21:52, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
622:21:13, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
606:17:14, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
588:17:09, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
67:16:11, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
229:as original PRODder. --
360:OMICS Publishing Group
594:Note to closing admin
459:few or no other edits
798:"a close-knit group"
461:outside this topic.
489:and then also read
356:predatory journals
576:WP:IGNOREALLRULES
462:
302:
282:
262:
840:
823:
444:
324:
321:
315:
213:
197:
196:
182:
134:
122:
104:
34:
848:
847:
843:
842:
841:
839:
838:
837:
836:
830:deletion review
819:
719:Bengali Studies
633:Robert McClenon
385:If you look at
319:
313:
311:
211:
139:
130:
95:
79:
76:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
846:
844:
835:
834:
814:
813:
790:
763:
762:
761:
760:
742:
741:
695:
694:
659:
658:
657:
656:
626:
625:
624:
608:
568:
567:
566:
565:
564:
563:
536:
529:SubhashboseINA
506:
505:
464:
463:
447:SubhashboseINA
437:SubhashboseINA
423:
422:
421:
420:
382:
381:
346:
345:
328:
314:Chris Troutman
304:
303:
283:
263:
242:
241:
200:
199:
136:
75:
70:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
845:
833:
831:
827:
822:
816:
815:
812:
808:
804:
799:
794:
791:
789:
785:
781:
777:
774:
771:
768:
765:
764:
759:
755:
751:
746:
745:
744:
743:
740:
736:
732:
728:
726:
720:
716:
712:
708:
707:User:Tamalmou
704:
700:
697:
696:
693:
689:
685:
681:
677:
673:
668:
664:
661:
660:
655:
652:
649:
644:
643:
642:
638:
634:
630:
627:
623:
620:
617:
613:
609:
607:
603:
599:
595:
591:
590:
589:
585:
581:
577:
573:
570:
569:
562:
558:
554:
550:
545:
541:
537:
534:
530:
525:
521:
517:
513:
510:
509:
508:
507:
504:
500:
496:
492:
488:
484:
480:
476:
471:
468:
467:
466:
465:
460:
456:
452:
448:
442:
438:
433:
428:
425:
424:
419:
415:
411:
407:
402:
397:
392:
388:
384:
383:
379:
374:
370:
366:
361:
357:
353:
352:Peterkingiron
350:
349:
348:
347:
344:
340:
336:
335:Peterkingiron
332:
329:
327:
322:
316:
309:
306:
305:
301:
297:
293:
289:
284:
281:
277:
273:
269:
264:
261:
257:
253:
249:
244:
243:
240:
236:
232:
228:
225:
224:
223:
222:
219:
216:
209:
205:
195:
191:
188:
185:
181:
177:
173:
170:
167:
164:
161:
158:
155:
152:
149:
145:
142:
141:Find sources:
137:
133:
129:
126:
120:
116:
112:
108:
103:
99:
94:
90:
86:
82:
78:
77:
74:
71:
69:
68:
65:
63:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
820:
817:
792:
766:
724:
722:
710:
698:
680:WP:NJournals
666:
662:
628:
593:
571:
548:
543:
539:
511:
493:. Thanks. --
469:
431:
426:
401:unverifiable
396:Beall's list
390:
387:WP:NJournals
330:
307:
226:
204:WP:NJournals
201:
189:
183:
175:
168:
162:
156:
150:
140:
127:
58:WP:NJOURNALS
49:
47:
31:
28:
684:Mark viking
457:) has made
166:free images
780:Dougweller
750:Randykitty
672:WP:TOOSOON
598:Randykitty
553:Randykitty
520:Randykitty
516:Randykitty
495:Randykitty
432:Randykitty
410:Randykitty
231:Randykitty
62:j⚛e decker
826:talk page
648:Fut.Perf.
616:Fut.Perf.
612:I like it
549:Knowledge
406:premature
310:per nom.
292:• Gene93k
272:• Gene93k
252:• Gene93k
215:Fut.Perf.
37:talk page
828:or in a
731:Blueboar
455:contribs
125:View log
39:or in a
580:Carrite
512:Comment
470:Comment
373:MEDLINE
172:WP refs
160:scholar
98:protect
93:history
803:Sitush
793:Delete
767:Delete
703:WP:COI
699:Delete
676:WP:GNG
663:Delete
491:WP:AGF
365:Scopus
308:Delete
227:Delete
208:WP:GNG
144:Google
102:delete
54:WP:GNG
50:delete
544:three
187:JSTOR
148:books
132:Stats
119:views
111:watch
107:links
16:<
807:talk
784:talk
754:talk
735:talk
711:only
688:talk
678:and
637:talk
629:Keep
602:talk
584:talk
572:Keep
557:talk
533:talk
522:and
499:talk
475:this
451:talk
441:talk
427:Keep
414:talk
369:here
339:talk
331:Keep
320:talk
296:talk
276:talk
256:talk
235:talk
180:FENS
154:news
115:logs
89:talk
85:edit
667:any
540:all
391:one
210:."
206:or
194:TWL
123:– (
809:)
786:)
756:)
748:--
737:)
690:)
639:)
604:)
586:)
559:)
501:)
453:•
445:—
416:)
341:)
298:)
290:.
278:)
270:.
258:)
250:.
237:)
174:)
117:|
113:|
109:|
105:|
100:|
96:|
91:|
87:|
805:(
782:(
752:(
733:(
686:(
651:☼
635:(
619:☼
600:(
582:(
555:(
531:(
497:(
449:(
439:(
412:(
337:(
323:)
317:(
294:(
274:(
254:(
233:(
218:☼
198:)
190:·
184:·
176:·
169:·
163:·
157:·
151:·
146:(
138:(
135:)
128:·
121:)
83:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.