Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Archives of Scientific Psychology


 * 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.  Sandstein  19:20, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Archives of Scientific Psychology

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article PRODded with reason " Non-notable new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG.". Article dePRODded with reason "any new journal produced by the APA is very likely to be notable". However, notability is not inherited. After 5 years of existence, which is plenty time, it still is not in any Clarivate Analytics database (not even the much maligned ESCI) or in Scopus. On my user page, I have some examples of journals published by major publishers and still tanked after only a few years. PROD reason therefore still stands, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 22:15, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 22:21, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 22:21, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Redirect to APA. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 18:34, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. I have consistently disagreed with my friend David E Randykitty for journals published by a premier scientific society. Even the embryonic ones are notable. It's not a question of too soon, as it might be from a commercial publisher, because it is not really conceivable that any research journal from the APA will not be in ISI as soon as it has the necessary length of publication to calculate the impact factor.  DGG ( talk ) 01:58, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * , I think you mean me, not David E. ;-) And I indeed disagree. This journal has been around for 5 years, more than enough time to get listed in Scopus and ISI. Compare that with Draft:JAMA Cardiology, also a society journal, which was established in April 2016 and already has an IF (and a large one at that), so it is conceivable that an APA journal does not get into ISI at the first possible occasion, not even several occasions later. Archives of Scientific Psychology is several years older, so there's been more than enough time to calculate an IF. A different example is Contemporary Organic Synthesis, published by the Royal Society of Chemistry, which existed from 1994-1997 and then folded without ever making it into any major database. Being published by a reputed society is not a guarantee that a journal will become notable and that goes for Archives of Scientific Psychology. I find it very strange that after 5 years this is not included in at least Scopus, so at best, this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. --Randykitty (talk) 08:17, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * fixed the name. Sorry.  DGG ( talk ) 01:19, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:05, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect to American Psychological Association. It got a bit of discussion (also here, and some briefer mentions ); I found some interesting reading, but not quite enough reliable sourcing to sustain an article. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 23:01, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - I'm a bit out of my comfort zone when it comes to gauging notability of academic journals, but I looked this over a little bit. There is minor coverage highlighted above, which wouldn't be enough normally for a keep. I went to American Psychological Association to see if a merge made sense, and it doesn't.  The American Psychological Association section just lists the organization's numerous journals, but not this one, so I added it.  Since the target is just a list of similar publications, a redirect to an unlinked entry is inconsistent with the look and feel of the existing page, and doesn't really add value.  I'm on the fence, but since the article isn't intended to be promotional, I don't see it hurting, and so I'm going to throw a weak keep vote out there. TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  00:06, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment., what's the use of having notability criteria if we're going to keep everything that's not promotional? I could write a neutral article about my cleaning lady, too... :-) --Randykitty (talk) 08:14, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. - what makes this different is there’s a benefit however marginal in spreading academic discourse and research - in the pursuit of knowledge. And you can’t just throw up a collection of papers and call it a journal - there’s some work and thought behind this. Your cleaning lady might have some great techniques with the broom and mop, but they would not be hard for others to replicate. TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  11:48, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If you see the thousands of journals around, setting one up is not that hard either... Your !vote is not based on policy/guidelines but on WP:ILIKEIT... --Randykitty (talk) 15:08, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but perhaps more WP:IDONTHATEIT. TimTempleton (talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  17:57, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That's nonsense. I don't hate it either, why would I? But we have notability criteria and this doesn't meet them. So either you put in a proposal to do away with WP:N, or you'll have to provide reasons why this meets NJournals or GNG... --Randykitty (talk) 18:03, 28 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.