Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International scientific-practical journal «Commodities and Markets»

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. Sandstein 17:44, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

International scientific-practical journal «Commodities and Markets»

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." DePRODded by article creator without reason given. Journal only indexed in trivial or suspect indexing services (such as Index Copernicus). PROD reason therefore still stands. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 06:08, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Journal present in Google Scholar: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=TXm7F6kAAAAJ&hl=uk Tunyk (talk) 09:12, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, it is. GScholar strives to include every journal ever published, so it is not a selective database in the sense of WP:NJournals, so this fails criterion 1. In addition, the link you provide shows that articles from this journal are rarely cited (418 total, h-index of 7). This number of citations would be insufficient to make a single researcher notable, let alone a whole journal, so this fails criterion 2. Finally, there are no sources indicating that the journal has a significant history (the low citation counts already point to that), so this also fails criterion 3. --Randykitty (talk) 09:24, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The journal is popular in Ukraine, unfortunately, Ukrainian scientists only recently started using Google Scholar, and the majority of citations is solely in paper form (in Ukraine few books that are publicly available online, and academics mass not place their articles in such services as Academia. edu or ResearchGate) so these figures due to consider it. However, as I said journal is the official international board and filed an application for inclusion in Scopus and Web of Science. Tunyk (talk) 09:39, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Index Copernicus in Ukraine is considered one of the most authoritative databases. To Journal it was it must meet several criteria. Tunyk (talk) 09:45, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

None of those are selective databases, so they don't contribute to notability. For a journal to meet criterion 3, you'd need thousands of citations and several articles with 100 or more citations. the information in Index Copernicus is contributed by the publishers of the journals themselves and it contains many predatory journals. It's "ICV" score is calculated in a weird manner and is basically meaningless. Most high-profile journals are not in IC and being listed in it is more of a negative than a positive, I fear. --Randykitty (talk) 09:59, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG, and Randykitty explains well why it fails our more detailed criteria for journals. In other words, it is a tiny journal nobody cares about except few people who run it. Not encyclopedic. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:11, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:10, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:10, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:10, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of selective indexing or other aspects of notability covered by WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:23, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Randykitty pretty much hit the nail on the head. I'm not seeing evidence of being listed in selective indexes as opposed to basically a wiki that would indicate the journal is reputable. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:30, 31 July 2016 (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.