Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Word Structure

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. Cirt (talk) 15:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Word Structure[edit]

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

This was prodded by User:Crusio, but I don't feel comfortable with it being deleted without more discussion. The reason given for prodding was "New journal with only 4 issues published yet. No sign of notability. Article creation premature, does not meet WP:Notability (academic journals).".

Well 4 issues is two years, and two years is plenty enough IMO. However, what would really settle the issue for me is indexing information and impact factor, which I can't find. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 16:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Of course there is no impact factor yet. Even if the journal had been accepted by JCR (and as far as I can see, it isn't), it needs to be older to have an IF. Apparently the journal is not indexed anywhere yet, otherwise the publisher would have mentioned this on their webpage for the journal (they do so for other journals). --Crusio (talk) 17:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 17:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 17:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~ without prejudice against reintroducing if this journal becomes notable in the future. The title is indexed by EBSCO's "Communication & Mass Media Complete", but not ISI "Web of Science" or "Social Sciences Citation Index". I can find no impact factor, and no clear evidence that the journal is notable. Cnilep (talk) 18:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep per DGG, below. I hadn't seen the inclusion in LLBA, but indexing by both EBSCO and CSA suggests notability. Cnilep (talk) 17:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Edinburgh University press is a highly reputable publisher, and I count their new journals as somewhat more likely to be notable than those of startup online-only publishers.it is in the two major indexes, MLA Bibliography , and Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts, the latter of which is the only really good index in linguistics. DGG ( talk ) 04:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alright then keep per DGG. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 14:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No secondary sources analyze this journal, its founding or anything else. This is a violation of WP:PSTS and should be grounds for deletion. The article makes no claim of notability, and contains no encyclopedic information whatsoever, and should be deleted under WP:A7. The article reads like a directory entry, which Wikipedia is Not. WP:NOT#DIR is a WP:Policy, and trumps WP:N, a mere guideline, and certainly trumps WP:Notability (academic journals), which did not achieve consensus when it was floated. DGG's argument that corporations whose business is indexing journals have, in fact, indexed this journal doesn't carry much water for me. Do these indexing services only index the most important or impactful journals? Is it Wikipedia's job to index all the hundreds of thousands of journals that happen to be indexed by some for-profit company? I say no. Abductive (reasoning) 22:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The notability is that it's an legitimate academic journal thus is considered to be a reliable source, and is archived by relevant indexes (MLA Bibliography, LLBA, EBSCO, CSA according to DGG an Cnilep [urls would be nice so I could include this in the article]). And it's completely false that the article contains no encyclopedic information. It contains all the basic info of the journal, namely editor, publisher, year of foundation, topic, its scope, etc... Your argument that people makes money by indexing things holds no weight. If that were the case, the iPhone would not deserve its article because Apple, AT&T, et al. makes money off the iPhone, as well as the 3rd party sources by reviewing it.

The question you should be asking is not "does CNN anchors know of Word Structure?", but rather "is Word Structure a notable linguistics journal?" Notability has to be measured in proportion with the subject. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 01:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the situation. User:Crusio prodded it, and User:DGG only says "weak keep". The journal itself isn't a WP:Reliable Source, it is the articles it publishes that are reliable. What would convince me is secondary sources about the journal, such as the ones I used to write the article on the American Journal of Physical Anthropology. In that article, I strove to have something encyclopedic to say. I am not happy with a bare-bones directory listing of "basic info of the journal, namely editor, publisher, year of foundation, topic, its scope, etc...". This to me is the kind of infomation that people can get be Googling the journal's name; who is going to look at the article not knowing the journal's name beforehand? Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia; this means to me that all topics on which it has an article have secondary sources. Since this topic does not have secondary sources, it should be deleted, just as if it was a book without secondary sources, or a company without secondary sources, or a flavor of ice cream without secondary sources. Abductive (reasoning) 05:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Other than the index listings, I can find no coverage of this journal in independent sources, so there is nothing that can be reliably said about it beyond the current directory listing. It is still young, at only two years old, so it hasn't had much time to get a significant reputation or impact - it yet been referenced in any news articles that Google knows about for example. No prejudice against an article should it become notable in future, but it isn't notable currently. Thryduulf (talk) 14:52, 7 February 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.