Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Algebraic Geometry (journal)


 * 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 merge to Foundation Compositio Mathematica or European Mathematical Society. No policy-based reason to keep has been advanced in the discussion, but it's clear that the content has been judged preservable. ansh 666 20:55, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Algebraic Geometry (journal)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 18:45, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I would rather see this merged somewhere than deleted. The likely target would be Foundation Compositio Mathematica, however this currently redirects to its flagship journal Compositio Mathematica. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:50, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:04, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:04, 15 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment From everything I can find, this seems like a legitimate publication, but perhaps too new to really merit an article. Typically, I would suggest redirecting to the publisher and carrying over the AMS and Zentralblatt citations to provide sources for basic facts. In this case, however, Foundation Compositio Mathematica redirects to the article on their primary publication, Compositio Mathematica. My current feeling is that Foundation Compositio Mathematica should be an actual article that summarizes the activities of the foundation, and both Compositio Mathematica and Algebraic Geometry should be sections of that article. To me, this seems to strike the right balance between preserving uncontroversial content about legitimate mathematics publishing (thereby being useful to the mathematical community) and giving undue weight to efforts that have just recently gotten going. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:46, 16 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment: clearly a legitimate scholarly publication, run and staffed by serious people. It is fully indexed in both MathSciNet and zbMATH, the two major databases for peer-reviewed publications in this field.  (And contra the nomination, both are selective, with an editorial process and nontrivial standards for inclusion.)  There is a defensible case to be made that most of the academic journal content on Wikipedia should be deleted for being non-notable and difficult or impossible to reference decently, but this particular journal doesn't seem outside the norm in those respects.  --JBL (talk) 17:49, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Nobody has ever claimed that this is not a legitimate journal, but I think most everybody agrees that it is not enough for a journal to be legit to make it notable. As far as I know (but let me ping who knows more about this), MathSciNet and ZbMATH are only selective in the sense that they only include legitimate math journals (that is, they exclude clearly predatory junk journals), but as long as a journal is legit, they cover it. I think we need more to establish notability. --Randykitty (talk) 18:09, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that is an accurate description of MathSciNet, at least. Probably Zbl is the same but I'm less familiar with it. The other potentially-selective source listed is the Norwegian Register for Scientific Journals, Series, and Publishers, but they aim to cover "all academic publication channels worldwide" and the level 1 they assign this journal is their lowest ranking . —David Eppstein (talk) 18:14, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment There is to the best of my knowledge no really eslective indexing service in the field (except for general services like Scopus and Web of Science. I do not consider the Norwegian list reliable,any more than I do other individual country lists for what they cover for the purposes of appointments and tenure and grants.  DGG ( talk ) 22:09, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. Scopus is rather inclusive these days (currently indexes 37,956 journals), so if something is not even in Scopus, it's unlikely to be notable. --Randykitty (talk) 08:13, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The scopus inclusion criteria are here -- they describe an editorial process and inclusion criteria basically identical to those of MathSciNet and ZbMATH. The idea that what they are measuring is related to "notability" in the Wikipedia sense is very strange.  (I understand that this comment is really about the terribleness of NJOURNALS, not the article under consideration here.)  --JBL (talk) 12:05, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * If you want to argue that listing in Scopus alone is not enough for notability, I would actually agree with you (although up till now, mine is a minority view at the journals WikiProject). In any case, if something can't even make it into Scopus, it's really not notable in my book. --Randykitty (talk) 12:40, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * There is clear evidence that the journal is not in Scopus; there is no evidence at all that it "can't make it in to Scopus". (Obviously, it satisfies their listed inclusion criteria -- more likely, no one has bothered to try [quite possible: mathematicians don't rely on Scopus because we have two subject-specific databases] or they have a slow review process or both.)
 * If you start an RfC or whatever about revising NJOURNALS I will happily contribute my thoughts, but some of your colleagues in the WikiProject are deeply unpleasant and I have no interest in making myself the central target of that unpleasantness. --JBL (talk) 12:48, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I neither have the time nor the inclination to start such an RfC. This is becoming a bit tangential, but I think such an exercise would be fruitless. It would just re-hash previous discussions (see NJournals talk page) with some editors maintaining that any academic journal should have an article and other insisting that every journal article should meet GNG. NJournals is, I think, a workable compromise, even though it remains very difficult to find enough "delete" !votes each time I bring an article to AfD because it doesn't meet NJournals. As far as I am concerned, if something doesn't even meet that essay, then it really, really, really is not notable. --Randykitty (talk) 12:57, 21 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Selective merge to European_Mathematical_Society, where it is mentioned. This is a reputable journal put out by a reputable organization and publisher that unfortunately doesn't meet our threshold for notability. But basic facts are verifiable in independent RS such as the math catalogs above. Hence, per WP:PRESERVE it is reasonable explore alternatives to deletion per WP:ATD. The journal is owned/edited by Foundation Compositio Mathematica and published/printed by European_Mathematical_Society. I agree with XOR&#39;easter and David Eppstein that FCM would be a better target than EMS, but until an FCM article is written, it's reasonable to merge to EMS. I recommend a selective merge of reliable sources (catalog refs) from this article to European_Mathematical_Society. --Mark viking (talk) 18:07, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per the existance of https://doaj.org/toc/2214-2584 . Anah Mikhayhu Leonard (talk) 00:08, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * COmment All that a listing in DOAJ shows is that a journal exists and probably is not predatory. Apart from that, this is not a database that is selective in the sense of NJournals. (And neither is it an in-depth coverage in the sense of WP:GNG) --Randykitty (talk) 04:57, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 21:05, 23 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep but move over Foundation Compositio Mathematica and merge in their other journal. One page for the publisher and both journals as suggested above. Legacypac (talk) 21:41, 23 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment: I think the proposed merges are very reasonable. --JBL (talk) 22:32, 23 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep but merge as above - having a quick look, seems to be a legitimate journal, not predatory Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:15, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: For the umpteenth time: nobody claims this journal is not legit. But why should "not being predatory" be enough to meet NJournals or GNG???? --Randykitty (talk) 05:20, 27 April 2018 (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.