Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CINEJ


 * 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. Per Articles for deletion/Vedat Akman Black Kite (talk) 01:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

CINEJ

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Article PRODded with reason "New journal, no independent sources, not indexed in any major selective databases. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals", dePRODded without stated reason, but with addition of two non-selective databases. Hence, PROD reason still holds: Delete. Guillaume2303 (talk) 19:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note See also the related AfDs for EMAJ and Vedat Akman. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 21:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  — Frankie (talk) 20:05, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  — Frankie (talk) 20:05, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Part of a walled garden of articles probably created by Vedat Akman himself. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:41, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't Delete. There are too many articles in Wikipedia about journals like that. In these article have so many reference. I think it don't need delete. User talk:Bir Miktar Bilgi —Preceding undated comment added 10:50, 14 April 2012 (UTC). — Bir Miktar Bilgi (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not really a policy-based argument. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:09, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Don't Delete. I think you need this informations. --Alenbohcelyan (talk) 13:16, 15 April 2012 (UTC) — Alenbohcelyan (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

PKP: Inclusion verified: http://pkp.sfu.ca/ojs-journals. Open Archives Registry: Inclusion verified: http://www.openarchives.org/Register/BrowseSites. UIUC OIA registry: Inclusion verified: http://gita.grainger.uiuc.edu/registry/searchform.asp. WorldCat (OCLC) OAIster: We registered our journal, but we’re working with OCLC to have the journals display in the results. Ulrich’s: http://ulrichsweb.serialssolutions.com/search/94665581 and http://ulrichsweb.serialssolutions.com/search/3116753. Have to request a correction to the record, though, because they incorrectly list the publisher, which should be University Library System, University of Pittsburgh. EBSCO: Verified. Have a signed agreement. http://old.library.georgetown.edu/newjour/: Verified. You can search for them online at that URL. Directory of Open Access Journals http://www.doaj.org/doaj?func=suggest&owner=1: Submitted but the journals do not yet appear. Do know they have a back log but will look into this further. Electronic Journals Library: Previously submitted but have submitted them again. EBSCO databases already included. CABELLS-USA Submitted and under review. JournalsSeek Submitted and under review. ABI/INFORM-USA Submitted for review. Index Islamicus: submitted for review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alenbohcelyan (talk • contribs) 13:13, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment None of these databases really is selective, so being included in them is not really a distinction and does nothing to meet WP:NJournals (and even less to meet WP:GNG). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 21:16, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Don't Delete. Just look at the Peer Review Board,  it is the best in the field.  --beykenthoca (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 15:15, 15 April 2012 (UTC). — beykenthoca (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment Perhaps, but notability is not inherited. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 21:32, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. Please consider some caveats to guidelines announced at proper wiki page on the topic which states " 1.Note that as this is a guideline and not a rule; exceptions may well exist. Some journals may not meet any of these criteria, but may still be notable for the work they have published. It is important to note that it is very difficult to make clear requirements in terms of quality of publications: The criteria, in practice, vary greatly by field... " Thank you. --beykenthoca (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC).
 * Comment Absolutely correct. But you give not a single argument as to why this particular journal would be an exception. There is not a shred of evidence that any of the (few) articles published by this journal has made any measurable impact yet. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 21:16, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment As much as I know CINEJ collaborated with important project such as BREAKING THE STEREOTYPE with Dr. Veronika Bernard (University of Innsbruck/ Austria) and set up conferences together in Italy /Rome, Turkey/Istanbul, and Austria/ Vienna and published a conference book together as well. Also collaborated with National Institute for Health, Migration and Poverty, Rome/ Italy on the same Project. CINEJ seem to appear in incredible organizations around the world. These people are so dedicated and a chance would be great, I hope… Thank you.--beykenthoca (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 22:25, 15 April 2012 (UTC).


 * Don't Delete. I trust publications supported and published by Pittsburgh University which is a highly decorated research university in USA. This journal is also listed under publications by Pittsburgh University Library System Pittsburgh wikipedia page too... Thank you. --sitkisonmezer (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:07, 16 April 2012 (UTC).  — sitkisonmezer (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Don't Deletehttp://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/9539599 CINEJ at Stanford notable? ;  http://www.sub.uni-hamburg.de/recherche/elektronische-zeitschriften/detail/titel/179551.html  Hamburg Germany and http://www.uu.nl/hum/staff/QHan/0 her article recently published with CINEJ … http://sunzi.lib.hku.hk/ER/detail/hkul/4651136  CINEJ  Hong Kong ... http://www.ebscohost.com/titleLists/fah-coverage.pdf  EBSCOHOST CINEJ -- Dmboatis (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 18:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC).  — Dmboatis (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment Yep, the journal exists, it's available for free on the web and so libraries will include a link on their websites. Sorry, but that is nothing out of the ordinary and absolutely not a sign of notability in the WP sense. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Noppp, no of course not... libraries are selective in their collections mostly if have agreement with EBSCO or Worldcat which are expensive listings and services they may choose from their collections because of their membership still even than libraries are selective and certainly they dont put everything that is free on their collections please look more carefully... it seems it is very common at wiki making assumptions... --ozkazanci (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC).  — ozkazanci (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Not really. Linking to an OA journal basically costs nothing. For books we sometimes take library holdings as an indication of notability. Generally, hundreds of holdings are needed for that, anything less will not do it. So adding a smattering of library holdings to the article on this journal really does not do much towards establishing notability (and even less so because it actually doesn't cost anything to do so). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Response to your response... please look at the link on reliability at wiki which states "the publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press). All three can affect reliability. " so my question is you dont find Pittsburgh University or Pittsburgh University Press reliable ??? It is a highly ranked research university or do you have a different opinion about reliability because if we consider the link you gave for reliability if Pittsburgh University is not than Who, Which ??? I am really confused about where this is going again... Thank you. --ozkazanci (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:21, 17 April 2012 (UTC).
 * Yes, I think PUP is reliable and their website confirms that the journal exists. But existing is not enough for notability. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Remark...Hi, I am asst. Prof. Sitki S. From Beykent University. I lost my password so I continued with this nickname previously it was sitkisonmezer. For the record, sorry for any confusion. I am writing this message from our Taksim Campus location we have 3 campuses. I reside in Ayazaga Campus usually... Unfortunately, I find wiki very difficult for first timers. I feel very uncomfortable... I thank you for the opportunity to discuss the future of CINEJ and EMAJ which I both support but I think I should complete my discussion on all pages because I really said all there is to say. Thank you. Best wishes. Sitki S--ozkazanci (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC).


 * Delete per Guillaume BO ; talk 17:31, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak delete Not yet notable by our current standards. I note that only one regular issue and one special issue have been published, and this is not enough to show the journal will become established.
 * But with respect to some of the arguments: I think library holdings are very relevant for open access ejournals, and I think I can prove it. As a librarian, I would not --and never did --add free material to the catalog unless there was good reason. It takes actual work to add anything to the catalog, & continuing work to keep it up to date, and an academic library does not aim at facilitating access to worthless material, even free worthless material. In fact, since the faculty don't need the library to buy  Open access journals, even if the faculty want the journals, there won't be many requests to catalog them.  For example, look at this very title:   Examining WorldCat for library holdings, I see it's cataloged by only 3 US libraries Viginia Commonwealth,  Iowa and Stanford. (Were what  Guillaume2303 said correct, we would expect hundreds of US holdings).  The traditionally best film schools, NYU and UCLA, don't list it.
 * As for listing by Ebsco, they have very liberal standards, since the large number of journals to which they provide full text access is a selling point, but they also want to maintain a serious reputation. And even DOAJ, which wants to promote OA publishing, has at least minimal standards, since they want to promote the idea that OA ejournals are a respectable mode of publication.
 * Judging the journal by library criteria, I'd wait for another issue. The editorial board is from a limited range of universities, and so are the contributors (in fact, they're from mostly the same universities--quite common, since the usual way to get good people to contribute to a new journal, is to offer to add them to the editorial board, and then ask them to help by contributing an article.) The journal has the sanction of a good university press, but in a special project. The rules of the project seem demanding. According to its web site, their "Selection Criteria: We are seeking partners who: Ensure quality through a rigorous peer-review process; Support Open Access to scholarly research; Are supported by an internationally recognized editorial board; Possess the staff resources needed to ensure timely publication; Solicit new original scholarly research through an open call for papers; Practice selectivity regarding published content. All of our peer-reviewed journals are also published in partnership with the University of Pittsburgh Press. " I think this is sufficient to differentiate them from the sort or irresponsible e-journal publishing that is unfortunately become so common. But as far as I can tell none of the journals are yet established, and only Études Ricœuriennes / Ricœur Studies has a truly first rate representative editorial board.
 * Personally, I would  support a more common-sense view of any journal notability--I think our standard of requiring indexing in a major selective index is overly rigorous, and we would do better to consider any journal published by a reputable scientific publisher or university or notable society as notable if it has actually published an issue.  But I don't think that currently has consensus.  DGG ( talk ) 18:59, 18 April 2012 (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.