Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Intelligence 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 delete. Spartaz Humbug! 19:15, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

American Intelligence Journal

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article PRODded with reason "Unsourced since 2008, website is dead. Cannot find an ISSN." Article dePRODded with reason "ISSN 0883072X - rm prod". Besides the ISSN, three references were added. The fist one is a single reference to an article published in this journal, but a smattering of such citations is nothing out of the ordinary and to be expected. The second is the list of issues of this journal on JSTOR, supporting the age of the journal. The third is the most substantial one and is a single sentence in a book, listing 4 journals that "contain superb source materials on intelligence". None of the sources provide any in depth discussion of the subject. Apart from that, the journal is not indexed in any database (selective or not; see here]). Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals. Randykitty (talk) 16:43, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 16:43, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 16:43, 13 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep: This looks like a WP:BEFORE fail on WP:NJournals. Easily passes Criterion 2  with over 1400 hits returned on Google Scholar.  Toddst1 (talk) 02:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: I disagree. Clicking on the link to GScholar renders results to different journals, plus some results to this journal, but most articles have been cited only a handful of times. As I said above, a smattering of citations is to be expected, but 1400 would not necessarily even make a single academic notable, let alone a whole journal. In short, I do not think that this meets NJournals#2. (And note that any journal that gets cited even at minimal rates will be picked up by the Science Citation Index or Scopus. Not being in either one of those is a good indication that the number of cites this journal has gotten over its 40-year history is not important). --Randykitty (talk) 09:26, 14 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete The most cited article from this journal I'm seeing on GScholar has 34 cites. I see 5 articles total with over 10 cites. Non-existent general coverage doesn't help, either, and the article really milks its claims from nothing. The "superb source materials" claim is made as if it's a statement of fact, when it was a passing opinion dropped about a list of other journals, as mentioned in the nom. The other sources basically prove the thing exists and nothing more. Skeletor3000 (talk) 08:05, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge to publisher ideally, but since that's not there, ehhhh... is more or less how I feel about this. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:19, 20 December 2019 (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.