Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caribbean Journal of International Relations & Diplomacy


 * 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 keep. With no disrespect to Randykitty's interpretation during the nomination and their subsequent comments, consensus here is tending predominantly towards keep. I would suggest that before this article is renominated, at least some discussion on the issues raised by Randykitty are held on the talk page of the said article. (non-admin closure)  Lourdes  03:47, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Caribbean Journal of International Relations & Diplomacy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG.". Article dePRODded with reason "Removing PROD notice; take this to AfD if you feel strongly about it." PROD reason still stands, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 22:29, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets criterion #2 of WP:NJOURNALS: Criterion 2: The journal is frequently cited by other reliable sources. Per article: The journal has published articles by Winston Dookeran, Richard Bernal , and others. It has been sourced in a number of academic and popular texts.      . (Also, minor point of clarification - article was de-prodded by User:Carrite, not article creator [me]. Not suggesting OP was saying I de-prodded it, just getting ahead of the horse to avoid any confusion.) Chetsford (talk) 00:45, 1 July 2017 (UTC)


 * References


 * Comment. When writes "sourced", they clearly don't mean "has been discussed in depth" but "has been referenced". Hence, in my informed opinion, this journal does not meet NJournals#2. A handful of references to articles in the journal are to be expected. When NJournals#2 talks about "frequently cited", then at least hundreds of citations are meant, not a couple of dozen. That notable people have published in the journal is irrelevant, too: WP:NOTINHERITED. Which is exactly the reason why our journal article writing guide strongly counsels against including "notable authors" in articles on academic journals. PS: Perhaps Chetford can collapse the text/references above, this is already included in the article and makes this discussion rather unwieldy. --Randykitty (talk) 10:03, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment In principal I agree with RandyKitty. In the case of this specific journal, which has published less than a dozen issues, I believe the quantity of referencing (of which the citations represent only a small selection), is sufficient. By not communicating a number-based criteria (e.g. "has been referenced in at least 182 other RS"), NJOURNAL intends to leave it to the evaluative judgment of editors to consider quantity of referencing in relation to volume of issues. Chetsford (talk) 17:30, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:43, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:43, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:43, 1 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - While I appreciate that there are many commercial journals out there that are essentially scams, this does not appear to be one. We need to maintain a very, very low bar for journals, in my opinion, because we at WP footnote on sources of presumed reliability; how are we to figure out if this, that, or the other journal is respected or disrespected if we sweep away all the descriptive articles about them??? It doesn't make any sense... I dePRODded this one — while honest people may differ about whether a journal should be included, there's no way that these type pieces should be taken to the cul de sac of PROD to die. I'm satisfied by the array of links above that this is a journal worthy of inclusion under the SNG for journals. Carrite (talk) 04:01, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: see my remarks above about the "array of links". Maintaining "a very, very low bar for journals" while simultaneously keeping out those that "are essentially scams", introduces a subjective value judgment by WP editors that, I think, is highly undesirable. --Randykitty (talk) 10:03, 1 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - per both others. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:56, 1 July 2017 (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.