- Journal on European History of Law (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
The closer completely ignored the strengths of the arguments made in the discussion. All deletes are based in sound policy-based and notability-based arguments. There is no independent reliable attesting to the notability of this journals. The sources provided are completely trivial, no additional ones have been given, and searches for them have come up bare. Even the keep votes agreed there are no third party sources establishing notability. This should be overturned to delete. (Note, the article has been deleted in the past for lack of notability. It was recreated, and notability was no more established now than it was then.) Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:51, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Invalid because of WP:BEFORE. We haven't exhausted finding suitable merge targets, for this journal and hundreds of others. This journal is at the least offensive of non-notable journals. Not promotion, not fringe, not fake, entirely scholarly. Admittedly I haven't verified that the editors are real academics. I thought we were in agreement at WT:NJOURNAL to improve guidance on these very problems, and given your limited time, why waste it on this trivial skirmish. Roy in effect gave us two months (WP:RENOM) to sort it out. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I would have called it "no consensus". The status quo on journals in general is unsatisfactory. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:19, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse The closer's analysis, while may not be compelling to all, demonstrates a review of the !votes and a thoughtful consideration thereof. No Consensus would also have been reasonable, but given the totals, a delete outcome, which I presume is what you're seeking here, does not seem objectively reasonable given the arguments made. Jclemens (talk) 03:23, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Discussions are not headcounts. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:26, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course they're not, but closing against a numerical preponderance requires a much higher level of policy superiority on the numerically inferior side. I'm just not seeing that here, sorry. Jclemens (talk) 00:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse closer's analysis. "Ignore All Rules" is a policy-based rationale, by the way, somehow the review is being based on a "lack of policy-based arguments," which is a stretch. Carrite (talk) 04:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn. I copy here what I just posted on the closer's talk page: "AfD is not a vote. Just counting votes is not how an AfD is supposed to be closed. !Votes that are not policy based should be ignored. In your close you claim that the contents of the article can be verified. Well, they can, but only if you accept sources provided by the journal itself. Given your close, I guess we now should keep every article on journals published by OMICS Publishing Group, too. After all, their existence can be verified by looking at their websites, which claim that they are peer-reviewed scientific journals. As an aside, I have many years of experience with academic journals and so does Headbomb. I find your characterization of us us as "people whose arguments to delete consist largely of finding the correct chapter and verse of wiki-policy to cite" to be mildly insulting at best." The argument put forward by SmokeyJoe is nonsense: the AfD was open for 2 weeks. If sources were not found in that time, they just aren't there. Again, the reference to BEFORE is doubting the good faith of the nom: I am very familiar with academic journals and know where to find sources. I assure SmokeyJoe that BEFORE was adhered to. Finally, IAR may be policy-based, but I doubt that it should be applied to cases where we have zero independent sources. If this article stands, we should be consistent and start writing articles for all OMICS and SCIRP journals, too. --Randykitty (talk) 07:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- PS Perhaps it is good to have a look at the original nom, too: this article seems to be part of a concerted effort to promote this journal (note that articles have been created on 12 different wikis, each one by a different SPA). --Randykitty (talk) 07:23, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse – within discretion. Discussions about "notability" are not over matters of policy and people are free to express their opinions, and have them considered. WP:Notability suggests appropriate standards but that document is intended to reflect consensual standards rather than to set them. WP:Verifiability is a policy, and a very important one, and it received less discussion, possibly because people were distracted by ongoing attention to notability. We require reliable sources for anything that might be challenged and the discussion tended to take the view that these particular sources are reliable, even if not independent or substantial. The ideas expressed during the AfD were thoughtful and the closer was right not to overrule any as being not based on policy. Thincat (talk) 08:46, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Randykitty and I both work in this area,we have jointly played a considerable part is establishing the guidelines, and about 95% of the time we agree. Once in a while we don't. and it is usually over such articles as these: relatively small journals in the humanities of soft social sciences. Our standards have been developed for the sciences, where there are selective indexes, and inclusion in them is a reasonably clear indication of notability. I do not think our usual standards of indexing apply in fields where where are fewer selective indexes., such as this. We have to go by some judgment of the significance within the subject field, and people can disagree. It's essentially a question of IAR, and there are no rules about when to use IAR, expect that for individual instances the majority in a reasonable discussion of established editors to use it is sufficient to establish a consensus for that case. (for anything other than a specific case, wider consensus is necessary). -sometimes I agree with it, sometimes not, but if there is a clear consensus, I accept it. We've done that here, If the decision were wholly irrational , that would be another matter, but otherwise, just as we make the rules, we can make the exceptions. DGG ( talk ) 09:38, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, well within closer's discretion and the reasoning is not off the planet. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
- Statement from closing admin (neutral on outcome). I've looked over my close once again, and am once again satisfied it's reasonable. I have however struck the part of my statement which compared individual editors. It's the arguments that count, not the people. My close was based on the arguments, and I should have left the closing statement at that. My apologies for any inadvertent offense. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse I would have closed this as NC, but Keep, to use an Americanism, is not completely out of the ballpark. Black Kite (talk) 16:37, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to no consensus. Keeping an article when it's been acknowledged that there are zero independent sources is an extraordinary outcome. That would not normally satisfy WP:V, and that argument was raised in the discussion. The close did not address this. Those of us who work in journals are well aware of the paucity of independent sources. That means you work to change the guideline, not just ignore all the rules because we happen to like this journal (for the record, I have nothing against the journal). I have no idea how the closer reached a keep result (as opposed to no consensus) in the face of the numerous policy-based arguments raised which were not refuted. Mackensen (talk) 15:49, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I have backed out my close. This seems to have generated far more controversy than I intended. I think it's pretty clear if this DRV went on that my close would get endorsed, but the goal here is not to win the DRV, it's to write an encyclopedia, and having a close that's so contentious doesn't advance that goal. So, I've backed out my close and somebody else can try again. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
|
