Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interface: a journal for and about social movements

Add links
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 no consensus. v/r - TP 20:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interface: a journal for and about social movements[edit]

Interface: a journal for and about social movements (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is about a relatively new journal, that is claimed to be unique and one of only 4 journals "devoted to social movements". PROD was denied, but there are no independent sources (the external links given are either to the journal itself or to sources that are no necessarily reliable). Apparently not indexed in any major database. Some notable persons have published in the journal, but, of course, notability is not inherited. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG, hence: delete. Crusio (talk) 12:37, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 14:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is mentioned in a newsletter of the International Sociological Association. While this confirms that it exists (which is not in doubt anyway), it does not confer any notability at all. --Crusio (talk) 16:19, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Newsletters are often less stringently edited than othe things. In the present case, the link you refer to is an announcement about the journal by one of the people involved with it. --Crusio (talk) 09:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's one way to look at this, sure. Or you could look at it the way I do: it is a mention in the top professional association that certainly does screen what appears in its newsletter. As such, I think that ISA newsletter confers a significant degree of notability. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 15:44, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can see why you would think this, but that is not the way these things work. Newsletters are intended to inform members of anything that might be of interest. Any new journal in the field of interest would be mentioned in such a newsletter. The people making those newsletters are generally starved for copy and would probably ask someone connected with such a new journal to write something about it. This does absolutely not mean that the organization publishing the newsletter endorses the journal or even recommends its members to publish there. The only "screening" about what goes into a newsletter is a quick read-through and only if somebody would write crazy stuff would it be weeded out. This is why I don't think that an announcement in a newsletter amounts to much concerning notability. --Crusio (talk) 17:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last comment is inaccurate in this case. The International Sociological Association is a very substantial organisation (more details in its WP article), and its newsletter (translated into 6 languages other than English) reflects this. The editors are in no way starved of copy, nor does it mention every new journal related to sociology. In this case the article was solicited by the ISA's president, Michael Burawoy.--Laurence Cox (talk) 23:35, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, but this doesn't address the question discussed above as to the significance of the ISA soliciting and publishing this article.--Laurence Cox (talk) 00:10, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, there is no evidence that this was solicited, second, that it was solicited just confirms my remark about editors of newsletters continuously trawling for copy. If this newsletter had thought this journal so important, they would have written a review of it themselves. --Crusio (talk) 09:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.It is inaccurate to claim that there are no independent sources (as noted above).

The journal does not claim to be "unique" but it does claim [disclosure: I am one of the editors; I believe this claim to be correct, after 20 years working in the field] to be distinguished by *not* being a pure academic research journal but rather a practitioner journal produced by and for engaged scholars *and* movement practitioners. In this respect the question of its notability is not simply a question of its unusual features *as academic journal* but also *as social movement publication*, hence the inclusion of a list of notable activists and intellectuals who have published in it (and a link to its debate with David Harvey, also notable.--Laurence Cox (talk) 23:06, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I note also that WikiProject Sociology rates this article as of mid-importance.--Laurence Cox (talk) 23:09, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Mid" importance parameter was added by the article creator and, in any case, has no bearing on this discussion whatsoever. As for the "inaccurate" claim, I still have to see independent reliable sources. I don't think that "not being a pure academic research journal" is enough of a claim of uniqueness to meet WP:NJournals#3. As explained in the nom, the fact that notable people have published in the journal is irrelevant, as notability is not inherited. --Crusio (talk) 09:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we're talking at cross-purposes. My point is rather that the Interface entry should not simply be evaluated by the criteria for academic journals, as it is programmatically not simply an academic journal.--Laurence Cox (talk) 23:35, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the absence of specific guidelines, WP:GNG applies. This obviously does not meet that. --Crusio (talk) 09:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 21:50, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Moogwrench (talk) 05:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the well-articulated arguments of Piotrus. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Three references are provided in the article: an announcement/description of the journal by a member of the journal's collective; another member's description of the journal and invitation to join it; and a professor's website, noting that an article of his had been debated in the journal, and providing links to same. While these may be useful sources of information about the subject, they are not useful for establishing notability, which requires reliable sources, in the WP sense of providing secondary, independent coverage. GScholar search returns only 94 hits, and virtually all of them to this journal itself, or mirrors; there appear to be only a scant, few references to it within other journal articles. GNews returns a solitary hit, to the journal's own website. GEverything returns links to the journal; announcements of the journal's founding and new issues; calls for papers; people's CV's who've written for or edited the journal. Nothing WP:RS that I could see. And given that it was founded only two years ago, notability can hardly be assumed. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 16:18, 2 October 2011 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Interface:_a_journal_for_and_about_social_movements&oldid=1089934810"