Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Humanity & Society

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. Insufficient agreement on the quality of sources. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:58, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Humanity & Society[edit]

Humanity & Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Has been tagged for notability for 2 years without improvement. Does not pass either WP:GNG or WP:NJOURNAL. Onel5969 TT me 20:23, 29 December 2016 (UTC) Onel5969 TT me 20:23, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No longer tagged for notability. Does pass WP:NJOURNAL. Perhaps you could re-assess? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 07:59, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Having checked sources for WP:GNG and WP:NJOURNAL, I agree that there is nothing to indicate that it meets either. It doesn't appear anywhere other than Google Scholar, and even there it's only been cited a handful of times. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:51, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails NJournals and GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 11:01, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:45, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:45, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The reading of what meets WP:NJOURNALS appears to be very broadly construed. Essentially, I see this as a WP:OSE issue. There are hundreds of thousands of journals around, but "inherent notability" is dubious: i.e., I could create an article for The Dostoevsky Journal, but does it mean that the article should remain? I'm sorry, but WP:COMMONSENSE dictates that an encyclopaedic resource is not a collection of everything because someone started an article on it, but no further information aside from evidence that it exists can be found numerous years later. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:05, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Iryna, of course there are thousands of journals, but the "Dostoevsky Journal" you chose as an example is exactly the kind of journal not likely to qualify for a Wikipedia article, whereas the Humanity & Society journal qualifies. Comparing the two, you'll note that H&S shows holdings in 879 libraries (comparable to many other popular mainstream journals), while Dostoevsky Journal appears in only 1 library. H&S appears in Google scholar thousands of times, while Dostoevsky journal appears there fewer than 200 times. H&S has been around more than four decades and is referenced in more than a dozen Wikipedia articles, while Dosroevsky Journal has only been around since 2000 and is referenced only once. I agree 100% with you that there are many journals, like "Dostoevsky Journal", which do not qualify for a Wikipedia article, but I disagree that "Humanity & Society" is one of those journals. The comparison is apples to oranges orangutans. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Significant journal, in the standard indexes for the subject. Reasonably decent publisher for this area. What might look like high library holdings, but unfortunately, we can no longer use library holdings as even a guideline, because journals like this are normally purchased as pat of a package from the publisher, and many libraries list them regardless of whether or not they have any local interest. DGG ( talk ) 02:57, 4 January 2017 (UTC)v[reply]
  • Keep. As noted above, the 4-decade old Humanity & Society is a significant enough journal. It maintains a reasonable presence in academic indices, Google Scholar, libraries, and many of its publications are well-cited. Journals review and publish the works of others, so any additional "notability" generated will likely be around the authors and the scholarship they produce, not the journal itself which is merely a vehicle. Likely for this reason, there is not a lot of third-party coverage of the journal, but it does meet Wikipedia's requirements as a reliable source. And the lead of WP:NJOURNAL does say: If the journal can be considered a reliable source, this will be often be sufficient to create a stub on a particular journal, even in the absence of other sources. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A clarification here, that sentence means the journal can be used as a source that's good enough to create a stub with basic information in it. Not that a reliable journal is necessarily considered notable,or ought to have such a stub. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A further clarification here, that sentence is prefaced by a sentence which I failed to quote, which gives more context: Every topic on Wikipedia must be one for which sources exist; however, most journals nowadays have home pages which may be used as sources for uncontroversial information. If the journal can be considered a reliable source, this will be often be sufficient to create a stub on a particular journal, even in the absence of other sources. Note the juxtaposition set up by the word "however", between our usual requirement that topics on Wikipedia must be covered in independent sources (see WP:NOTABILITY), and the exception to that rule made for journals, which allows us to create Wikipedia articles for journals in the absence of third-party sourced coverage. You say that wording doesn't mean "that a reliable journal is necessarily considered notable, or ought to have such a stub", but it does indeed mean that an article (i.e.; a "stub") can indeed be created for it despite the lack coverage in independent sources required for other article topics (see WP:GNG). If that wording was not intended to allow such an exception to WP:GNG for academic journals, then the wording needs some serious updating. The present wording tells Wikipedia editors that they can't create a new article unless the subject is covered by independent sources, unless that subject is an academic journal, in which case the article can be created solely from information obtained from itself even in the absence of other sources.
On a related note, I'm watching with interest the current discussions on the WP:NJOURNAL Talk page. Some of the proposals sound like they may directly affect this and other journal articles if they are implemented. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 22:01, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:25, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I beg to differ. Did you look at the "references" that have been added? Some don't even mention the journal, the rest just in-passing. That they are published by SAGE is not relevant (WP:NOTINHERITED) either. --Randykitty (talk) 09:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Perhaps it would be more useful if you identify exactly what content about the journal has been cited to exactly what "reference" that doesn't "even mention the journal". Then after you fail to identify one for us, perhaps you could strike your comment? I've checked the references, and all content about the journal is cited to references which more than mentions the journal. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:59, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Going to have to go with delete on this, haven't seen evidence these databases are selective, and the sources added don't cover the journal in depth. WP:INHERITED for the claims it's published by SAGE, and therefore notable (it is NOT). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:31, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A couple questions: Do you consider databases like EBSCO Information Services' Political Science Complete non-selective? Do you consider coverage such as that on pages 52-59 in this source not in depth? Maybe I just find it difficult to imagine what "in depth" coverage of a journal might look like ... analysis of the font sizes they use? Quality of paper and ink? Journals do the in depth coverage, they don't usually get in depth coverage. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:59, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: EBSCO databases are indeed not considered selective. The book chapter you link to is written by Chet Ballard, former president of the Association for Humanist Sociology, so this is not an independent source. An yes, unfortunately, precious few journals get in-depth independent coverage. This seems to be one of those that don't get it. --Randykitty (talk) 09:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In plain language, WP:COMMONSENSE dictates that Wikipedia is WP:NOTEVERYTHING. The fact of the existence of the journal does not mean that an entry for it is either necessary or desirable. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:31, 13 January 2017 (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/Humanity_%26_Society&oldid=1072139021"