Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norwegian Journal of Sociology

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. I can see why this discussion has remained open as long as it has. It's a very narrow decision and I thought long and hard about this. The sources for this article are slender but my reading of Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals) is that those sources cited are just sufficient to keep the article. The journal obviously exists, the publisher has a webpage describing it whch we can use as a source and the article itself makes no outrageous claims requiring special sourcing. This isn't yet another article on a Pokemon variant and somebody, somewhere might find this information actually useful to them. The encyclopedia is better off if it stays. If only the energy devoted to this discussion on both sides had been dedicated to improving articles.... Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Norwegian Journal of Sociology[edit]

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

Artiocle PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded without reason given. PROD reason still stands. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 22:18, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The claim that it was "dePRODded without reason given" is wrong. It was explained to you that it is Norway's main sociology journal, with a 46-year history, and it is published on behalf of all the universities. The article also has existed for nearly 7 years. Your other claims are also incorrect, as is this frivolous nomination. Heavily biased (towards English language publications) databases are of zero relevance to Norwegian journals (inclusion in databases is not part of the academic tradition in the journal's field, and I don't know of any Norwegian language journals included in such databases), and is not a requirement for inclusion. Furthermore, Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals) is merely an essay expressing the personal views of some editor, and the journal also easily meets several of the proposed criteria in that essay by being the most important publication of Norwegian sociology over nearly half a century. --Lillelvd (talk) 22:24, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Fine, let's ignore NJournals for the sake of this discussion. That means that you'll have to show that this article meets WP:GNG. At this point, all we have is the fact that the article has existed for 7 years (irrelevant), that the journal has existed for 46 years (also irrelevant, although it might increase the chance that sources exist somewhere), and your assertion that this journal is very important. Any reliable sources independent of the subject that discuss this journal in-depth? I appreciate that it often is difficult to find sources about academic journals, but surely you can appreciate that WP cannot base its inclusion guidelines on what individual editors deem important or not. And, please, before you again accuse me of making "frivolous" nominations, could you perhaps read WP:NPA? Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 22:54, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- It has nothing to do with what I deem important or not; the sources already cited in the article already make it quite clear that it is the central publication of Norwegian sociology. One example of an additional source is Pål Repstad, Sosiologiske perspektiver [Sociological Perspectives], p. 17 (Universitetsforlaget, 2014), where he points out that "The most important Norwegian [social science journals] are Sosiologisk tidsskrift, Tidsskrift for samfunnsforskning and Sosiologi i dag" (the first and last titles are the former titles of this journal). --Lillelvd (talk) 23:11, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:41, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:41, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:41, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete there ~~are no~~ appears to be only one independent sources showing notability (the blog postings appear to be from one of the sociology associations represented by the publisher; the first ref appears to be independent), so fails WP:Golden rule. Also fails NJOURNAL. Jytdog (talk) 09:31, 2 January 2017 (UTC) (amend, 1st ref appears to be independent Jytdog (talk) 16:23, 2 January 2017 (UTC))[reply]
- This is a flatly wrong claim. The article includes three independent sources. Two of them are from Sosiologen, a news publication owned by the Norwegian Sociological Association, and not a "blog." --Lillelvd (talk) 10:14, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You don't appear to understand what we mean by "independent". Jytdog (talk) 16:13, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Biassed towards English language and on-line publications.Rathfelder (talk) 10:19, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You mean: "if it's not in English, let's abandon all notions of notability"? That's a policy you may have trouble getting accepted more widely here... --Randykitty (talk) 10:41, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: The journal was a printed journal from 1971 to 2016, and has become an online-only journal only recently. Apart from that, I agree that it is important to avoid systemic bias against non-English journals or journals in fields with different traditions (e.g. where impact factors or indexing services which favour English-language journals to an extreme degree have no importance); if not even the most established academic journals in Norway could be included in the English Wikipedia, then it would in reality mean that no Norwegian journals could be included at all. --Lillelvd (talk) 10:35, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the Social Sciences Citation Index and Scopus list many non-English journals (including Norwegian-language journals). --Randykitty (talk) 10:41, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- These two services, which are both commercial and which favour English language publications to a very large degree (as seen from the fact that the vast majority of leading journals from Scandinavia in the Scandinavian languages are not included), are not considered important in the social sciences (or other non-science fields) and particularly not in non-English speaking countries, such as the Scandinavian countries. Imposing the science field's focus on citation statistics on journals in fields where citation statistics (which itself is controversial) is considered irrelevant is an example of systemic bias, as is the use of databases which place all non-English publications at a great disadvantage. --Lillelvd (talk) 11:01, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That these services are commercial is irrelevant, so are most newspapers, magazines, etc that we routinely accept as reliable sources. And the fact that the great majority of journals that they index are published in index is not the result of a bias, but reflects the unavoidable truth that the vast majority of journals in any field are published in English nowadays. Anyway, journals can be notable without being listed in any citation index, all you need are independent RS that discuss the journal in-depth. --Randykitty (talk) 13:45, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The article includes two references from the news publication of the Norwegian Sociological Association which discusses it in-depth and which make it very clear that it is Norway's flagship sociology journal, and another reference which states that the journal is one of the leading social science journals in Norway (which is comparable to references 2 and 3 used in British Journal of Sociology which include similar concise statements about the journal's position in British sociology). While being Norway's flagship sociology journal might not seem very impressive to someone from an entirely different field than sociology, Norway has been one of the great powers of sociology since the discipline's birth, and it seems very unnecessary to have a debate over whether the country's main sociology journal merits inclusion. --Lillelvd (talk) 14:10, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Around 90% of the sociology journals included in the Social Sciences Citation Index are English language journals, with a handful of journals in other languages, mainly German and French. In sociology, much research is published in other languages than English, with the large tradition of eg. German, French and indeed Scandinavian sociology published in their own languages; a database which favours English-language publications 90 to 10 compared to the rest of the world is strikingly absurd, and of course one of the reasons the Social Sciences Citation Index is widely criticised of language bias, and why many believe it shouldn't be used uncritically (if at all) when assessing the academic output of non-English speaking countries it barely covers. --Lillelvd (talk) 09:40, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, and many "local" journals (like the one under discussion here) publish in English to reach a wider public. If you want to be read, you write in a language that many people understand. It's a fact of life that many non-English journals are really third rate. The good ones get into Scopus and such, the others not. However, please note that not being included in Scopus or the Social Sciences Citation Index is not an indication of notability, neither is the absence of independent reliable sources. Come up with good independent sources that confirm that this is an important journal and we're done here. Your personal opinion (or my personal opinion) is absolutely irrelevant here. --Randykitty (talk) 11:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- 1) The article includes 4 references, and 2) Your claim that everyone needs to publish in English, and that "non-English journals are really third rate" is preposterous and certainly not true in the case of Scandinavian sociology (and other fields as well). In fact it's the other way round, lots of American, Indian etc. English-language journals are third rate, as opposed to this journal, which is one of the premier social science journals of the Nordic countries, an important region in sociology in general. Systemic discrimination of non-English journals, even the leading journals in their fields and countries, is certainly not based on any Wikipedia policies. --Lillelvd (talk) 12:08, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to read my comments again and this time more carefully. --Randykitty (talk) 18:15, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment just because there are claims of English bias in databases does not negate the need to meet notability criteria on Wikipedia.

Keep per Lillelvd. The references in the article establish that this is one of Norway's leading sociological journals. All searches must be done under the previous names/incarnations of the journal, and "Sosiologisk Tidsskrift" and "Sosiologi i dag" both get over 1000 GBooks hits each. St Anselm (talk) 21:08, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:49, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I feel like there are two sides talking next to each other (as opposed to with each other). It does make things confusing for e.g. myself to help this discussion. Therefore, I have three questions, in order to try to clarify the viewpoints in this discussion.

Is there any question or doubt about "Norwegian Journal of Sociology" satisfying at least crit. #3 under WP:JOURNALCRIT, aside from any questions about whether this is supported by independent reliable sources (the question about independent sources is listed below; the only question here is whether, given the sources already provided, and assuming their independence and reliability, whether WP:N or WP:NJOURNALS is satisfied)?
What kind of independence is required from sources to substantiate a topic's notability or verifiability? Specifically pertaining to this article ("Norwegian Journal of Sociology"), why are the sources provided (i.e. the academic publication by Engelstad (1996) and/or the posts on the website of the Norwegian Sociological Association) independent (Lillelvd) or not independent (Randykitty) per WP:IS?
Without delving too deep into the discussion, there is something to be said about the Anglo-centric nature of relying on citation indeces (at least in my experience in Dutch legal academia; and I know, anecdotal stories are not strong arguments for or against any position). That said, I wonder whether this 'questionable' criteria of notability is nonetheless justified in an English language Wiki. Given the strong institutionalisation of citation indeces and scores in the English-speaking academia, it may be that a non-existent or low index may point to a lack of notability in an English language Wiki. I don't see any reasons why this Article could not both be irrelevant on en-wiki, but highly relevant on no-wiki.

Hopefully posing these questions (and potentially receiving answers from them) might allow this discussion to get back on track. --talk2Chun^{(talk) (contributions)} 13:38, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sources provided don't seem to be independent or are inaccessible. Also, the first issue of this "combined journal" is slated for 2017. The web site [1] claims the databases it will be listed in are as follows:

Google Scholar; Primo Central Index (Ex Libris) / Oria; The Summon service (ProQuest); EBSCO Discovery Services; and WorldCat Local (OCLC).

None of these are selective indexing. By degrees, they are comprehensive. Google scholar has no selection criteria. EBSCO has minimal selection criteria and is not sufficient for an article on Wikipedia by itself. WorldCat is a library index and lists pretty much anything ever published, not just academic journal information. Proquest is a library index and found in local public libraries across the land. These are not selective databases per NJOURNALS.

In contrast, to what is claimed, Norwegian journals are listed in the most selective database known - Thomoson Rueters suite of indexes (link here [2]) shown on the Master Journal List. Hence, as can be seen, the following journals would qualify for inclusion on Wikipedia according to NJOURALS:

(Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift) Norwegian Journal of Geography;
Norwegian Archaeological Review;
Norwegian Journal of Entomology;
Norwegian Journal of Geology

Also, there are currently 256 academic social science journals selected by this index from a variety of countries (link here [3]). It seems to me that the editors and editorial boards of this journal have simply decided it is not necessary to do the steps required to be listed on selective databases that we on Wikipedia require for article inclusion. It seems they have decided to operate on a regional scale in contrast to these other journals listed in this database, that are aimed at the international academic body.

I don't see how User:Lillelvd: can speak for this journal, since there must be tens or scores of other people involved with this publication.

Perhaps he has an article published in this journal. Who can say. But, in this instance, Wikipedia is not a platform to promote Academic journals WP:PROMO. We can only go by what reliable sources say.

One last thing - this source, one of the references, is not an independent source: [4] (Google translate is necessary for those who don't speak the Norwegian language). Steve Quinn (talk) 07:05, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In regard to your laughable claim about me supposedly having claimed to "speak for" this journal merely because I happened to have voted against this outrageous proposal regarding a topic/country I am familiar with, please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia:No personal attacks. There is now clearly consensus to keep this journal. --Lillelvd (talk) 03:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With several well-argued "delete" !votes, I think that stating that "(t)here is now clearly consensus to keep this journal" is merely an exercise in wishful thinking... --Randykitty (talk) 09:20, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've not seen a single well argued delete vote, but several well argued keep votes, so the result here is clear. --Lillelvd (talk) 12:56, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's where we disagree in part. I don't see a single policy-based "keep" !vote, but several well-argued delete ones. So I do agree that the result is clear... --Randykitty (talk) 13:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that Wikipedia is not a place to promote a controversial, widely criticised, commercial product by Thomson Reuters known for its near-exclusion of non-English journals and that its completely haphazardly selected list of a handful supposedly Norwegian journals is of no relevance to Wikipedia (in addition to being considered irrelevant in the journal's field, as discussed). Contrary to your claims, the journals you cite are English-language journals; for example the Norwegian Archaeological Review is an exclusively English-language journal published in the UK by a British publisher (Routledge). Also, while it "it seems to" you that the editors of this journal have "simply decided it is not necessary to do the steps required to be listed on selective databases," it seems to everyone knowledgeable about academic journals that these databases are regarded as an irrelevance in this journal's field, and have always been during its nearly 50 years of existence as one of Norway's and the Nordic countries' main social science journals. The comment about non-English journals not being "aimed at the international academic body" is a blatantly biased comment that shows a profound lack of knowledge about the academic publishing world and what we are discussing in this particular discussion, and underlines why your comments here should be disregarded. --Lillelvd (talk) 03:36, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can rant as much as you want, but Steve Quinn gives a clear list of Norwegian journals listed by the JCR. As for your silly claim that the JCR is considered irrelevant for sociology journals: the JCR category "Sociology" contains 142 journals, including the Swedish-language Sociologisk Forskning. Given all this evidence, I think that "blatantly biased comment that shows a profound lack of knowledge about the academic publishing world and what we are discussing in this particular discussion, and underlines why your comments here should be disregarded" applies to your own comments here. --Randykitty (talk) 09:20, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

-User:Lillelvd: I notice that none of your assertions are true or accurate. Also, I see that many of your assertions come across as irrational. Do you have sources that back up your negative descriptions pertaining to Thomson Reuters, whose indexes are the gold standard on Wikipedia? (please WP:NJOURNALS). Also, Wikipedia is not here to Right Great Wrongs. This is an AfD; a discussion for deletion. If you want to discuss the merits of discriminatory practices by the "evil" academic publishing community and commensurate indexing services this is not the venue. Please try your government representative or your region's newspapers. Also, please provide sources that shows the irrelevance of these databases to the Academic community - then these other assertions will be believable. Lastly, all social science journals in Norway or even elsewhere are not the topic of this AfD, and have no relevance to this discussion. Mostly what I am seeing is a bunch of Straw man arguments as a rationale for keep. These arguments are not policy based. Steve Quinn (talk) 09:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think your rant above merits a response. --Lillelvd (talk) 12:57, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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 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.