Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Economics of Development
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. However would be happy to userfy for anyone who wished to follow up on the suggestion to merge. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Economics of Development[edit]
- Economics of Development (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable journal: no independent sources, not listed in any major, selective databases. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals. Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - That's OCLC 774086872. WorldCat lists it in only three libraries, all in the Netherlands. If its not notable enough to be carried by a single university library in the English-speaking world, it isn't notable enough for the English-language Wikipedia. GabrielF (talk) 17:43, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Economics of Development is available in two databases: DOAJ(DOAJ content for Economics of Development) and BASE (search engine)(search engines especially for academic open access web resources) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aapil (talk • contribs) 17:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments It's surprising that it is in so few libraries, because as an open access journal, such a listing consists of just an external link that doesn't cost anything... As for DOAJ and BASE: DOAJ is completely non-selective and will index any OA journal. BASE is unclear about its inclusion criteria, although from their website it seems that they are not very selective ("If you operate a repository and you can't find it in the list, please send a quick note to let us know"). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- For the majority of the Ukrainian scientific journals in the fields of economy the prevailing practice is to place only at the site of the National Library (link for Economics of development journal). DOAJ, as I know, has only one such journal. Accordingly, the global scientific community access to the development of Ukrainian economists are very limited. This article is a kind of attempt to correct this situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aapil (talk • contribs) 18:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I sympathize with your plight, but that is not what Wikipedia is about. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 19:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- For the majority of the Ukrainian scientific journals in the fields of economy the prevailing practice is to place only at the site of the National Library (link for Economics of development journal). DOAJ, as I know, has only one such journal. Accordingly, the global scientific community access to the development of Ukrainian economists are very limited. This article is a kind of attempt to correct this situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aapil (talk • contribs) 18:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - In my opinion we should have the lowest of all possible bars for the notability of peer-reviewed academic journals. It's a reliable source at WP, it might be used to cite facts in WP articles, those questioning these citations might want to investigate their source. Now, that's a lot of "maybes" and "what ifs," but that's a fairly lucid case for an IAR Keep here, in my estimation. Nope, sources are lacking. But the greater good of maintaining the encyclopedia outweighs that detail here... Carrite (talk) 20:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, that's very much a minority viewpoint. WP:NJournals did not become an official guideline (it's an essay right now), because too many people felt that it was setting the bar too low. As I said in the now, this journal does not even meet that bar. As for this being an RS, there are by now many online journals around that claim to be peer reviewed/academic/scientific/whatever, but many of them are nothing of the sort. To say that this journal is, indeed, an RS, I think we would need independent sources (and personally, I am quite willing to find one single reputable and selective database that decides to index a journal sufficient evidence for that). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 20:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not in any selective index. It is right and appropriate that the international community of economists have access to this journal, and that's exactly the purpose of DOAJ, which has done this successfully a many years now.. Wikipedia is not a web catalog, especially when there is a good one already in existence for the subject. DGG ( talk ) 05:25, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:42, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 03:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Kharkiv National University of Economics or to a list. Regrettably, the sourcing requirements of WP:GNG are not met, but the journal can still be covered as part of the article about the university, or in an appropriate list of journals. Sandstein 07:48, 25 March 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.