Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Libertas Academica

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 keep. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:03, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Libertas Academica[edit]

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

Non-notable journal, fails GNG; whether or not it belongs on the list of "predatory" OA publishers, it doesn't meet our standards of notability. Note also that the PROD a few months ago was removed by a sockpuppet of Scholarscentral. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While we're at it -- what to do about all the separate articles on all the individual journals, articles created by the same creator? Perhaps there's no alternative to separate AfDs for all of them (some have previously been prodded), but what a pain... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. czar · · 06:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. czar · · 06:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The nom probably means "non-notable publisher", not journal :-) I'm hesitating about this one. At least one of their journals is legitimate enough to be included in the Journal Citation Reports with a sizeable impact factor: Evolutionary Bioinformatics. While that article needs some cleanup, it is not even overtly promotional. Analytical Chemistry Insights is in Scopus and we generally take that as meeting WP:NJournals. So are Cancer Informatics, Clinical Medicine: Oncology (that title is incorrect, BTW), and Biomarker Insights. So some journals seem to fail our notability guidelines, whereas others meet it. In general, when a publisher produces several notable journals, we tend to keep the article on the publisher, too. The article on this publisher needs some re-writing to remove some promotional stuff, but there is at least one good source (Poynders blog -a reliable source- listed in the EL section). --Randykitty (talk) 11:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep If they publish even one journal with an impact factor, they're a notable enough publisher. 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 20:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. Mention in Journal Citation reports is enough to show that they have some notability on the academic scene. Ray^Talk 21:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've had the list of journals related to this on my to-do list for a while. Other than EB, I don't believe the other journals for which there are pages are notable, and are probably better deleted or redirected somewhere. DGG, is there a particular policy that you base this on? If there's a publisher who's only claim to notability is a single journal, I'm not sure it should have a separate article. a13ean (talk) 22:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dea db eef 23:21, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response What else does a publisher do but publish journals? If they publish notable ones, they are notable. The question is if there is only one--and here my argument is the same as with authors of a single notable book, that if they succeed, they are likely to have others become notable also. I see 13 of their journals are now in Scopus, so although I am reluctant to use Scopus alone for the notability of a journal, I think it's an indication of at least partial notability for them. Getting in JCR for a new publisher not linked with a major society is quite an accomplishment. DGG ( talk ) 01:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Randykitty's and DGG's JCR and Scopus finds. --Mark viking (talk) 11:40, 9 May 2013 (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.