Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asian Journal of Distance Education


 * 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 Draftify. Going with draftify as WP:Alternative to deletion. If it gets deleted in six months, c'est la vie. You can find this at Draft:Asian Journal of Distance Education. Missvain (talk) 23:15, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Asian Journal of Distance Education

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article PRODed with reason "Non-notable journal, indexing nowhere selective, fails WP:NJOURNALS". DePRODed with reason "Removed PD/D tag so we can improve article to meet standards". However, WP:BEFORE suggests that neither NJournals nor WP:GNG are met. PROD reason still stands, hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 18:59, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 18:59, 3 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete as the original PRODer &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:13, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Draftify. I understand the notability situation, so I won't call for keeping it as it is. But AJDE is neither sub-par nor predatory, it serves the Open Educational Resources movement within low income Asian countries in a way other journals don't, and its principals have close connections with the Commonwealth of Learning. In fact, I can see that you all who are calling for deletion have expertise in this area, so if you can, I'd ask for advice on which indexes are sufficiently selective to reach out to, so that once that's in place we can move it back to the main namespace. --Steve Foerster (talk) 16:27, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "AJDE is neither sub-par nor predatory" that's not the point. The point is that it grossly fails WP:GNG. As for selective databases, that's typically Journal Citation Reports (i.e. has an impact factor) or Scopus (i.e. has a CiteScore). &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:41, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * For sure, I realise that's not the main point, but that was one of Randykitty's stated motivations for focusing on this sort of thing, so I thought there was no harm in making that clear, especially since I'm asking for the article to be draftified rather than deleted. And many thanks, btw, I'll relay your advice to the editors! :-) --Steve Foerster (talk) 18:54, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 22:20, 12 May 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 15:52, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep or Drafitfy per SteveFoerster. Not a small number of papers published there (and reasonably well cited for a low-citation field in a low-citation part of the world geographically), see here. I'll not that I removed the external link to the website because it didn't work, but papers are still being published in that journal on Google Scholar in 2021, so it's not easy to say it's not notable. Dr. Universe (talk) 17:13, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: Even the lowest quality predatory journal will have papers "still being published in that journal on Google Scholar", so I find it difficult to see how this makes a journal notable (and I'm not claiming that this journal is a "lowest quality predatory journal"). Draftify would be fine if we could expect this journal to become notable in the next 6 months, but I don't see any indication that this might be the case. BTW, the journal moved to a different URL (.com instead of .org), I have corrected this in the article. Their "indexing page" proudly lists "Citefactor", a fake predatory "index", which does nothing to increase my confidence that this journal will become notable anytime soon. --Randykitty (talk) 17:23, 27 May 2021 (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.