Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journal of International Management

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. Snow keep and nom withdrawn. Given the unanimity here, I feel I can close this despite having !voted myself. Randykitty (talk) 13:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of International Management[edit]

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

Not sourced, and notability not established. JDDJS (talk) 00:49, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

provisional keep. Just because the creator is too lazy to come up with refs, it doesn't mean the journal isn't notable. It's published by Elsevier, for starters. And have a look at Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals), specifically where it says "For the purpose of Criterion 1, having an impact factor assigned by the Institute for Scientific Information's Journal Citation Reports always qualifies under Criterion 1", ie, it's probably notable. The impact factor (as mentioned in the entry) can be seen here and here. Needs refs and some cleanup. Hairhorn (talk) 01:05, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:42, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:43, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's notable, satisfies Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals). XeroxKleenex (talk) 05:52, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Sizable impact factor, index in Social Sciences Citation Index and Scopus. Clear pass of NJournals. Article is bad, I did some cleanup and added a source for the IF, but that is no reason for deletion. Nom is reminded of WP:BEFORE. I suggest to withdraw the nom to save the community time and effort. --Randykitty (talk) 16:56, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just add more reliable sources, academic journal, is notable. Strawberrie Fields (talk) 19:35, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although I agree with the !vote, I don't agree with the rationale behind it. There exist tens of thousands of academic journals and many of them are completely forgettable (i.e., not notable), so being about an academic journal is in itself not a reason to keep an article. --Randykitty (talk) 20:15, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per everyone above. –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:24, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn/Snow keep either way is fine way with me. JDDJS (talk) 02:34, 14 August 2014 (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.