Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Academicus


 * 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   delete. Evidence that the subject meets WP:GNG or WP:NJournals not provided. J04n(talk page) 13:51, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Academicus

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I PRODded the article, but some editors voiced their opposition on the article's talk page, so I thought it better to take this here. PROD reason was: "Non-notable journal. No independent sources, not listed in any selective databases. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals." This still stands, hence Delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:17, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * PS: this is the version of the article before I reduced it to its present state (I did this in small steps, each explained by their edit summary). --Randykitty (talk) 16:19, 2 February 2013 (UTC)


 * This would seem to be a more helpful set of searches than the one automatically provided by the nomination procedure: . Phil Bridger (talk) 17:11, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed, thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 17:26, 2 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The following statement was posted on the article talk page. I think it was intended to be taken into account in this discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:23, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

''“A new magazine that began in an era dominated by electronic messages now clearly is both an act of intellectual courage and fervent hope for the future. Especially in countries that are developing into modern industrial sense, such as Albania, a magazine like this could mark a turning point than the political theories still purely intuitive or dogmatically metaphors of the past.”'' We, the Academicus Journal Team, feel nothing else but e deep surprise the request to delete the article. The obligation of all us academicians is to open up a window in human reasoning. People than have the right to choose what’s best for them — Preceding unsigned comment added by Academicus Journal (talk • contribs) 21:02, 2 February 2013 (UTC)  — Academicus Journal (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Closing up an article for a scientific journal, is worst than cutting a tree. To improve it is a mission. On the first steps of Academicus, one of the most distinguished sociologist in the world, Franco Ferrarotti, addressed his thoughts about the new journal as following:


 * As an encyclopedia we aim to cover topics that are already accepted as part of the corpus of human knowledge, as demonstrated by their being covered in independent reliable sources. See WP:Notability for the official explanation of this principle. We do not cover topics that are hopes for the future or that could mark turning points unless and until those hopes are fulfilled and they actually do mark turning points. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:36, 2 February 2013 (UTC) P.S. We ought to have an article on Franco Ferrarotti. He may not actually be one of the most distinguished sociologists in the world, but he does appear to distinguished enough for us to have an article.


 * If Franco Ferrrarotti can not be considered one of the most distinguished world wide still alive sociologist ?! http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco_Ferrarotti Give a look at Google Scholar (since the others can be viewed by payment) and see yourself the citations :http://scholar.google.it/scholar?q=franco+ferrarotti&hl=it&as_sdt=0 Give a look what he wrote about Academicus Journal:http://academicus.edu.al/?subpage=news Members of the Editorial Board of Academicus are distinguished personalities such as Thomas Patrick Melady, 38 Doctor Honoris Causa Title: http://academicus.edu.al/?subpage=board, as well as other distinguished personalities such as Michele Marsonet or Invernizzi Emanuele, ex-president of EUPRERA Is is the International Editorial Board compounded by 8 members, leaving aside the Scientific Committee of 32 members. Academicus- International Scientific Journal is really a good one, it is not an emerging one but is operating from 5 years Do you really think that all this distinguished personalities were going to lose their time and deal with something not worthy???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabor Vasmatisc (talk • contribs) 14:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC)  — Gabor Vasmatisc (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Whether or not Ferrarotti is the most distinguished sociologist in the world or not is absolutely immaterial, as are the reputations of the persons on the editorial board and scientific committee. Please see WP:NOTINHERITED. What we need to establish notability of this journal are ideally independent reliable sources or, barring that, evidence of inclusion in selective major databases. Please review WP:GNG and WP:NJournals to get an idea of what is needed here. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 14:24, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Notability SciVerse Elsevier : http://www.hub.sciverse.com/action/search/results?st=academicus+2079-3715 Also included here Thanks Gabor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabor Vasmatisc (talk • contribs) 15:47, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm the user who originally wrote this article, then you put a template which showed that "it is promotional and should be deleted", then "there is no enough resources and should be deleted". These are some of the sources (CEEOL, EBSCO publishing, Euprera, ISSUU, Index Copernicus International, Institute of World Politics). Newspapers (kohajone.com - sq, www.bashkiavlore.org - sq). TV ( tvklan.al). I am administrator in the Albanian language since 2009, maybe you think sq.wikipedia is much lower level than English, which is true, but from my experience, this article does not deserve to be deleted. If so, then let us examine this list of articles in this category of academic journals, most of them are in the same situation, some worse, but are still active.--Liridon (talk) 19:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I don(t know who you mean by "you". The editor who originally proposed this for speedy deletion as being promotional has not participated in this debate, I think. Neither has anybody said anything negative about the Albanian WP, which is independent of the English one and has its own policies and guidelines (with which I really am not familiar). The sources that you give in your comment have been discussed above. None of them are selective databases (some of them are just user-contributed sites), none of them show any notability for the journal. The newspaper references that you give just mention Academicus in passing in connection with its editor, Musaraj. I agree that there are other stubs that perhaps merit deletion, but WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (aka "WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not an argument that carries much weight in an AfD discussion. --Randykitty (talk) 19:45, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

According to WP:NJournals, Notes and examples point 1.: "The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the journal is included in the major indexing services in its field. Examples of such services are Science Citation Index, Social Sciences Citation Index, and Scopus." Previously it was mentioned that Academicus is indexed by Scopus: http://www.hub.sciverse.com/action/search/results?st=academicus+2079-3715 So if I understood well, this means that Criterion 1 is fulfilled by Academicus to be considered notable by Wikipedia. Shall this information be included on the article's page as well? Vasmatics (talk) 07:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC) — Vasmatics (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * No, it was previously mentioned that this journal was under evaluation by Scopus. Your link only provides evidence that it is indexed by the non-selective Academic Search Complete, not by Scopus. Here is confirmation that Academicus is not indexed by Scopus. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:50, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Now I understand. Thank you for the clarification Vasmatics (talk) 10:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Keep: This journal seems notable to me. -   &#x0288;  u coxn \ talk 12:04, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:ILIKEIT is not really a good argument in AfD discussions. --Randykitty (talk) 12:06, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Writing “to be or not to be” is not productive, since existence is not simply a matter of perception. Being part of any data base is simply an editorial board issue. It is a particular data base which selects based on the application of certain criteria, definitively it is not up to an encyclopedia. Being listed in a database doesn’t means that you are a qualitative entity or at list famous. It is similar like telling to a certain university that cannot be included in an encyclopedia since it has not been listed in the best 500 referring to the Shanghai list, even if  10.000 students are actually enrolled in this university. I do not want to believe that this is being applied for small country such as Albania or for a journal originating from this country because it questions the basic principles of Wikipedia. We are afraid we are being discriminated. You cannot ask to a gifted child to grow up and become famous and then we will talk about you. More than 100 authors from all the world cannot be a simple coincidence inside a scientific reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabor Vasmatisc (talk • contribs) 15:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 22:00, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:00, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per my comments above. It seems that the relisters are looking for votes to count rather than arguments to evaluate so that's my vote. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:10, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and Phil. We can't keep articles for being "courageous", they need to be notable and verifiable. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  00:18, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep:Come on guys, in this way, you lose the sense of Wikipedia as a free encyclopedia. Please don't see discussion only, but see the content of the article.--Liridon (talk) 23:30, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment If you want to have your opinion count, you'll have to base your !vote on policy... --Randykitty (talk) 23:50, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.