Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Economy and Finance (2nd nomination)

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. --BDD (talk) 21:22, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Economy and Finance[edit]

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

In the four months since the last AFD, no improvement/sources have been forthcoming. The previous rationale still stands: "Non-notable journal. Despite what is claimed on its homepage, not included in the Science Citation Index Expanded (see http://ip-science.thomsonreuters.com/mjl/). No independent sources, not indexed in any selective major database. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG". Hence: Delete Randykitty (talk) 12:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nominator and any indication of notability on this journal's web site appears to be inaccurate. Furthermore, a Google search for this particular title does not appear to produce any hits for this journal (please see [1], and [2]). --- Steve Quinn (talk) 15:30, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~, the journal has an impact factor of 0.448, therefore is indexed by Journal Citation Reports, therefore is notable per WP:NJOURNALS. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:41, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, although the publisher's website is terrible, and blatantly copies Wikipiedia in several places... Can someone confirm that it indeed has an impact factor? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the fact that this journal copies Wikipedia articles (which I didn't know) tells me this is a sham publication. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 01:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is something very interesting. I just entered the first eight digits of both ISSN numbers into TR's Master Journal list. 1555-6492 (electronic) did not work. However, 1019-3316 (print) did work: here. Then I tried a Google search for the TR listed journal's name and have come to a Springer website here. Please notice the print ISSN and the electronic ISSN and compare to the subject of this AFD. I am now thinking that the subject of the AFD, the so-called academic journal "Economy and Finance" is a hoax. Also, the Wikipedia article is probably a hoax. In fact the focus and coverage of the legitimate journal is very different from the coverage of the subject of this AFD. I think the legit journal also has a Russian web site. I will back to you on that. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 01:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have access to the Sciences and Social Sciences editions of the Journal Citation Reports and have checked (again): This journal is emphatically not included in it and has no impact factor assigned by Thomson Reuters. Note that recently, several sites have sprung up that assign "impact factors", based on non-stated criteria, but that have nothing to do with TR. Entering the ISSN into the TR Master Journal list (see link given by Steve above) does give a hit, but for a different journal (named HERALD OF THE RUSSIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, with an IF of 0.214). Note that the ISSN given on the journal website of Economy and Finance is "1019-3316-34", whereas the Herald's ISSN is "1019-3316". Entering the EaF ISSN into the OCLC database gives no hit, entering the version withou "-34" at the end leads, again, to the Herald. Hence, I see no reason at this pint to withdraw the now and would like to ask Headbomb to have a look at the stuff that Steve and I dug up. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 08:59, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Change to delete Yeah, something seems shady here. Failure to establish the IF through TR, combined with the other stuff, means absolutely nothing from the official website is to be trusted, and the journal fails to meet WP:NJOURNALS supported by WP:V. That's certainly grounds for deletion, and we should look into any other journal from that "publisher". Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:09, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable given all of the above factors. PianoDan (talk) 14:33, 28 August 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.