Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Signs (International Journal of Semiotics)

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. Cirt (talk) 00:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Signs (International Journal of Semiotics)[edit]

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

Relatively new journal, no indications yet of any notability. Article creation premature, does not meet WP:Notability (academic journals) or WP:N. Crusio (talk) 16:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 16:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Journal is three years old, which is plenty for me. However impact factor and indexing would settle the issue of notability for me. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 16:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A journal can indeed after 3 years be indexed/abstracted in some major services. There is, however, no evidence at all that this is the case here. In addition, if I look at the layout of the published articles (basically just manuscripts in PDF format, with an added by-line), this journal definitely has the feel of something that a group of academics has put together in their spare time. There is nothing against that and this doesn't say anything about notability, of course, but it does mean that there is no dedicated publisher behind this who will see to it that the journal gets included in databases and such. The number of articles published is very low (especially given those three years): 1 article up till now in 2010, 7 in 2009, 9 in 2008, and 3 in 2007. For most journals, that would be just 1-2 issues... --Crusio (talk) 17:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The lack of indexing is a serious concern for a new journal like this. Impact factor is likely to be irrelevant, because this is in the humanities; WoS, which is of course very big on trying to promote impact factor whenever possible, nonetheless refuses to calculate it in the humanities, on the grounds that a/ most of the relevant citing sources are books, and b/ citations in that field tend to take a very long time to show up. DGG ( talk ) 05:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per DGG. Alright well if there's no indexing, then notability is indeed questionable. A shame it wasn't indexed, I'm always saddened by the deletion of legit endeavors. No prejudice against recreation if the journal gets indexed in a major service in the future. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 14:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not sure what semiotics is, but I can see that its journals are in the midst of a scramble competition. Wikipedia is not the proper arena for this competition. I see no sources and no sign that this journal is notable, important or appropriate for an encyclopedia. Abductive (reasoning) 21:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See semiotics (study of signs). Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 01:16, 31 January 2010 (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.