Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Democracy & Nature (4th nomination)


 * 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.

Due notice was made of the fact that multiple, clearly policy-knowledgable editors participated here until IPs or usernames not previously used. This can sometimes, even often, be a sign of misbehavior, a factor which can complicate the determination of consensus. In this case, the result would have been the same in any case. The conversation got acrimonious, and unnecessarily so. Please WP:AGF.

I did not find substantial evidence of canvassing; many of the strongest arguments on both sides were raised by experienced editors who are familiar participants at AfD.

The strongest arguments in favor of deletion invoked a fairly straightforward analysis of GNG. As always, a careful analysis of sources, as was done here, demands strong weight.

However, there seemed to be substantial support for the idea that different metrics should be applied to academic journals on a more consistent basis. The various essays on journal notability were cited by a few supporters, each of which tried to identify the metrics we could better use to evaluate journal notability. And those metrics were not so different, in a very general sense, from Carrite's approach to looking at journal publisher as a signifier of notability, nor DGG's looking to the reach of the journal via WorldCat. What I saw here was a number of experienced editors, experienced and knowledgable at AfD, with, in my experience, varied philosophies struggling with "I know this is notable, what the heck is the right way to create a good test?"

That too is a form of rough consensus for both keeping this article and continuing the difficult process of trying better codify a metric for academic journals. --j⚛e deckertalk 21:24, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Democracy & Nature
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article on an academic journal that existed from 1992 to 2003. Has been taken to AfD three times before (two "no consensus", then keep) in short intervals in 2005. Since then the article has changed a lot and it now has an impressive 24 references (I refer to this version of the article). Unfortunately, this is deceptive: not a single one of these references is independent of the journal, indeed, most are to the journal itself: There are also a number of external links. These are to the journal itself, its successor, a website related to its successor, the EBSCO database Academic Search (not selective, indeed does not even limit itself to academic journals but includes many magazines), and a link to a "journal matrix analysis" site, which lists 2 specialized databases in which the journal is listed, neither of them particularly selective either. On the article's talk page a further 13 references are listed. These are all cases where an article from this journal is cited in a book. None of these citations go further than an in-passing mention. Neither are there many citations: a GScholar search reveals that only one article has been cited 72 times, all others have been cited much less and, in fact, not that many articles have been cited at all. The articles claim to notability seems to be based on the fact that some notable people were associated with it or published an article or commentary in it, but that does not make the journal itself notable. In short, the above boils down to a failure to meet either WP:GNG or WP:NJournals. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 13:54, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) / Website of one of the sponsoring institutes with a summary description of the journal.
 * 2) / A book-selling website
 * 3) / The journal page on the last publisher's website
 * 4) / Editorial in the successor journal
 * 5) / Editorial in the journal itself
 * 6) / Debate in the journal itself
 * 7) / 2 commentaries in the journal itself
 * 8) / 3 commentaries in the journal itself
 * 9) / Article with 2 commentaries in the journal itself
 * 10) / Article with commentary in the journal itself
 * 11) / Article with commentary in the journal itself
 * 12) / Commentary on a related website with a response in the journal itself and a link to the succesor-joual's website
 * 13) / 4 articles/commentaries in the journal itself
 * 14) / 2 articles/commentaries in the journal itself and a (temporary?) dead link
 * 15) / Commentary in the journal itself
 * 16) / In-passing mention in a brief bio of one of the journal's associate editors
 * 17) / In-passing mention in the bio of the journal's book review editor
 * 18) / List of editorial board members on the journal's website
 * 19) / Same as 18, but at a different point in time
 * 20) / Letter of resignation of a board member in the journal itself
 * 21) / Board's response to 20 in the journal itself
 * 22) / Article in the journal itself
 * 23) / Article in the journal itself
 * 24) / Article in the journal itself
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 31 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:SJ, WP:NJournals, and Notability (periodicals). The criticism "passing mention" does not apply here; when a scholarly source directs its readers' attention to the coverage of a subject in Democracy & Nature, they are not doing so the way a newspaper article would mention another news source's coverage, or a public figure's opining. Totally different standard. Less than 72 times? I contradict the implication that that is a small number. Average of 10 times per article, for the first three pages of Scholar. Many are 30, 40 times. Google Books, also, looks like an intriguing place for new sources. Anarchangel (talk) 04:20, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Let me put it this way. If we were debating a single academic and not a whole journal, that citation record would be way below what we usually accept as indicating notability (Hundreds of citations). Note that "citations" are not the same as "sources". When I say "in-passing", that is exactly what I mean: a citation is used to support something that somebody writes, usually a sentence or part of that. It is not an in-depth discussion of the article cited, even less so of the journal in which that article was published. In addition, this journal seems to be particularly navel-staring. For example, the first article listed when one clicks the GS link above is one by T. Fotopoulos (the EIC). It has been cited 26 times. If you click that and look at the citations, you will see that at least half of them are by Fotopoulos himself. By the way, the applicable guideline here is WP:GNG and we also often use WP:NJournals. WP:SJ is an old essay that nobody follows and has no standing as policy and Notability (periodicals) has been superseded by NJournals (and is extremely vague, too). If you think there are new sources on Google Books, then please give them. Just saying that they exist is mere hand waving and not likely to impress anybody here. --Randykitty (talk) 14:08, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * These two comments / votes have been posted @ D&N talk page. I place them here.


 * == Democracy & Nature should be kept ==

This entry gives a description of a journal that operated successfully for a number of years. Anyone coming across an article from this journal should be able to look up information about the journal so as to assess the article's provenance. If anyone feels the entry lacks information they are free to add to it. I don't see why it should be deleted. WallabieJoey (talk) 23:50, 1 June 2014 (UTC) — WallabieJoey (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (user's first edit since 2009)


 * == Proposal to delete entry for Democracy & Nature ==

As a former member of the editorial panel and contributor to Democracy and Nature I find the suggestion that this entry be deleted astonishing. It is not just that the journal was very significant internationally during its period of publication; it is a reference point for current work on how to deal with the threat of a global ecological catasrophe. If Wikipedia does not have a place to keep alive memory of the recent past, it seems to me we are in a sorry state, coming closer to 1984. Memory, as Samuel Butler argued, is a defining feature of life. Associate Professor Arran Gare, Swinburne University, Victoria, Australia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.186.26.222 (talk) 00:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC) — 136.186.26.222 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment Neither of the above SPA comments, raising the suspicion of off-wiki canvassing, are policy based. --Randykitty (talk) 22:25, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment You should refrain from commenting. Not appropriate for a nominator to do that. Cwobeel (talk) 00:19, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * ????? AFD is a discussion about the notability of a subject. It is absolutely appropriate for each and every participant in the debate to comment. --Randykitty (talk) 11:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. I agree with Anarchangel comments above. Nikosgreencookie (talk) 23:30, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:SJ and  WP:NJournals Cwobeel (talk) 00:17, 4 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:SJ, WP:NJournals, and Notability (periodicals) as argued by Anarchangel. I am One of Many (talk) 00:56, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per Anarchangel. United States Man (talk) 01:05, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Please note that my nom was not just "does not meet this or that policy, should be deleted", but gave a detailed analysis of why I think the sources are insufficient. I note that up till now, the keep !votes all boil down to "meets this or that policy", without actually responding to my arguments or without specifying exactly which criteria of the cited policies are met, or exactly which sources provide an in-depth discussion of the journal. The only exception has been Anarchangel and I have stated why I think their argument is invalid. --Randykitty (talk) 11:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. User Cwobeel left also a comment here: [] saying "Very unlikely that this article will be deleted as it conforms with WP:SJ, WP:NJournals. I believe he is right. What do you think about? Nikosgreencookie (talk) 12:28, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment "What do I think about"? I guess you mean what I think about that assertion. Well, I just said so: just saying "as it conforms with WP:SJ, WP:NJournals" is not very effective unless one explains why. --Randykitty (talk) 12:37, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. Did you ever take a look (for example) @ New Left Review? And if yes do you see any problems there too? Nikosgreencookie (talk) 12:43, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Don't recall looking at that and did not look at it now either. There's 4.5 million pages in WP, there's indeed a couple I've never seen. If that article has problems, fix them. It has no bearing on the discussion here. --Randykitty (talk) 12:52, 4 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - I'll just base my defense on the pillar and policy of WP:IGNOREALLRULES (use common sense). Wikipedia is based upon footnotes to so-called reliable sources to provide for verifiability of the information they contain. Peer-reviewed journals, such as Democracy and Nature (published by Taylor and Francis) are given extremely high consideration as reliable sources. We NEED information on these journals to help our readers assess the merits and limitations of each journal. It should be extremely important to us all to create and maintain pages such as Democracy & Nature — whether or not the information contained therein is fully independent of the journal itself. This is common sense, is it not? Carrite (talk) 16:58, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but articles on journals regularly get deleted, even if they are published by Taylor & Francis or Springer if there is no indication of notability. We must have some criteria and they must be more objective than "this seems to be a reliable source, so ignore all rules", because otherwise any of the literally thousands of non-notable journals would clamor to have an article here. If, in addition, the information in an article is more than just simple facts that are easily verifiable, but consists of OR that interprets articles published in the journal themselves and is based on the opinion of a WP editor, I think that deletion is perfectly acceptable. Notability is not the same as WP:RS and nowhere is it written that reliable sources are automatically notable. --Randykitty (talk) 18:04, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I find it inconsistent that Randykitty mentions the need for objective criteria, and expresses concern about opinions; and then expresses the unsourced, and I presume unsourceable, opinion that there are "literally thousands of non-notable journals". Even if Randykitty could make such an argument, wp:notability is not the threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia, as explained at WP:ATD.  Certainly, as argued by Carrite, journals have a low bar to inclusion.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:50, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep First and foremost, I would like to make an “ethical” remark on this brazen and (as I will show below, totally biased) attempt by Randykitty to delete a historical journal of the radical Left, eco-left, Anarchist, feminist, left-libertarian and socialist dialogue from Wikipedia, an on line Encyclopedia that despite its dilative and “liberalistic” structure, may at times become a means to promote truly independent and autonomous voices that cannot be heard easily in the mainstream or sometimes even the "alternative" media. I am saying this because Randykitty tries to devaluate the notability of the journal Democracy & Nature on the grounds of mainly quantitative or other orthodox “impact” factors, as if the matter of notability of such media is a sort of competition of “prestige” in a TV Show or in comparison to ...the New York Times. Instead, as a matter of fact, in the relevant entry on “Prestige” and Rankings of an Academic journal, it is stressed that:


 * “In the natural sciences and ‘’’in the "hard" social sciences, the impact factor is a convenient proxy, measuring the number of later articles citing articles already published in the journal’’’. There are other, possible quantitative factors, such as the overall number of citations, how quickly articles are cited, and the average "half-life" of articles. There also is the question of whether or not any quantitative factor can reflect true prestige; natural science journals are categorized and ranked in the Science Citation Index, social science journals in the Social Sciences Citation Index.
 * In the Anglo-American humanities, there is no tradition (as there is in the sciences) of giving impact-factors that could be used in establishing a journal's prestige. Recent moves have been made by the European Science Foundation to rectify the situation, resulting in the publication of preliminary lists for the ranking of academic journals in the Humanities.”

Thus, as anyone with a rudimentary knowledge may understand from the primary sources provided in the article of Democracy & Nature, the journal is a radical, left-libertarian, direct-democracy Academic Journal, which does not conform to a “hard” science array of journals, no matter if they are natural or social.

For example, a professor in University of Oxford has stressed that


 * "a wide range of scholars have shown that procedural electoral democracy can be disparaged for its casting of divisions between public life and private life, its liberal individualism (Phillips 2000, 513), as well as its embeddedness in exploitative market economies (refer to Fotopoulos and to related Journals: Democracy and Nature and Periektiki Demokratia)."

But, let’s see, one by one, the (to say the least) completely biased “arguments” of Randykitty used to diminish and devaluate the journal’s importance:

(A) Randykitty says that the existence of references is “deceptive” per se, based on the fact that most references are to the journal itself:


 * "Article on an academic journal that existed from 1992 to 2003. Has been taken to AfD three times before (two "no consensus", then keep) in short intervals in 2005. Since then the article has changed a lot and it now has an impressive 24 references (I refer to this version of the article). Unfortunately, this is deceptive: not a single one of these references is independent of the journal, indeed, most are to the journal itself"

Nonetheless, even if this were true, it would not be a determining criterion for an article to be nominated for deletion, as primary sources per WP:PS can be used


 * ”to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge”

As a matter of fact, all primary sources used in the article are descriptive, apart maybe from the ones used in a probably subtle “interpretation” in this extract:


 * "The journal also served as a colloquium for a wide range of more-marginalized left groups, including libertarian socialists, social anarchists, and supporters of the autonomy/democratic project,[6][7][8][9][10][11][12] which sometimes has led to heated exchanges.[13][14][15]"

This extract was just amended by me in the entry itself. The rest of the primary sources are actually descriptive statements of facts for people to have an idea of the journal with access to the primary source without further, specialized knowledge.

But let’s see how Randykitty describes one of the references s/he finds “deceptive”:
 * "#/ Website of one of the sponsoring institutes with a summary description of the journal."

However the Social Ecology Institute is not a “sponsoring institute” of the Journal (!). It is an Institute that supported the journal, through the writings of mainly two of its members, among plenty of others, along the period of the journal’s operation. The Institute of Social Ecology was and has been independent of the Journal, as can be also documented by Murray Bookchin’s dialogues with members of the Editorial Board.

Of course, there are indeed many primary sources in the entry, something that can be amended in the entry itself, but as I stressed above, this is not certainly a reason for a topic/article to be nominated for deletion. The primary sources are used descriptively and not interpretatively.

(B) Randykitty then “judges” the value of the journal based on the “Selectivity” of the Indices added to the entry:
 * “There are also a number of external links. These are to the journal itself, its successor, a website related to its successor, the EBSCO database Academic Search (not selective, indeed does not even limit itself to academic journals but includes many magazines), and a link to a "journal matrix analysis" site, which lists 2 specialized databases in which the journal is listed, neither of them particularly selective either.”

As a matter of fact, though, this is totally irrelevant. Per WP:Journal that the nominator him/herself uses as his/her ultimate reference,:


 * “For journals in humanities, the existing citation indices and GoogleScholar often provide inadequate and incomplete information. In these cases, one can also look at how frequently the journal is held in various academic libraries (this information is available in Worldcat. Other sources can be found on the book sources page, at the Karlsruhe Virtual Catalog, or at the Zeitschriftendatenbank) when evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied. Data on library holdings need to be interpreted in the light of what can be expected for the specific subject.”

So, in Worldcat, one may find that the journal is available in significant libraries in many locations, particularly in Europe and the UK, like the British Library and the MIT library. The same can be retrieved in German academic libraries by cursorily using Zeitschriftendatenbank etc.

As far as the mention of “a journal matrix analysis” site, in fact this is the MIRA index analysis, which is actively supported by the Spanish Academia (University of Barcelona etc.), and the journal scores there an ICDS of 6.279, which seems more than adequate for a non-still operating journal.

(C) But what is even more blatantly uninformed and deceptive is when Randykitty says that:
 * ”Neither are there many citations: a GScholar search reveals that only one article has been cited 72 times, all others have been cited much less and, in fact, not that many articles have been cited at all.”

Something that he repeats later as a “token” for the non-notability of the journal.


 * “When I say "in-passing", that is exactly what I mean: a citation is used to support something that somebody writes, usually a sentence or part of that. It is not an in-depth discussion of the article cited, even less so of the journal in which that article was published. In addition, this journal seems to be particularly navel-staring. For example, the first article listed when one clicks the GS link above is one by T. Fotopoulos (the EIC). It has been cited 26 times. If you click that and look at the citations, you will see that at least half of them are by Fotopoulos himself."

But, everyone, even with a cursory look at WP:NJournals (which Randykitty supposedly has “studied”, and then "lectures" the rest of Wikipedia contributors) can clearly read (at the Criteria section) that:


 * "Google Scholar should not be used as an indication of notability. Google Scholar is reasonably inclusive for fields where all (or nearly all) respected venues have an online presence. Most papers in computer science will show up, but less technologically related fields or non-scientific subjects are less well represented. Even the journal Science puts articles online only back to 1996. Many journals, additionally, do not permit Google Scholar to list their articles. In the other direction, Google Scholar includes many sources that are not peer-reviewed, such as conference preprints, technical reports, and academic web sites. Thus, the presence or absence of references in Google Scholar should not be used to determine notability. At best, it is a starting point."

It is obvious, hence, that the above constitute a complete bias against the entry and the journal, and even against Takis Fotopoulos, the EIC, when s/he talks about “navel-gazing”, without a shred of evidence!

(D) Finally, as Anarchangel correctly replied, whether the citations are “passing” or not is irrelevant, and it is not of course easy for someone to judge if s/he has not read the book or author that does the citation! Nevertheless if we compile (and this only for Democracy & Nature, that is, excluding “Society & Nature” which also has plenty of references in books, journals and indices) a -certainly not exhaustive, but representative- collection of: (1) Bibliographical Databases, Journal & Research Indexes,

(2) “Bibliographies and Further Reading” recommendations

(3) References (many of which are accompanied by commentaries and recommendations) ,and

(4) References used on libertarian and, not only, Education,

...then we can verify that there are “tons” of important references and a significant impact of the journal in its field (something testified by contributors in the relevant talk pages as well), taking into account even “quantity”, a factor dictated by the bias and obvious ignorance of the nominator as his/her main “criterion” to judge an alternative journal-medium that was a invaluable forum for socialist, left-Libertarian, and democratic dialogue for the cause of promoting a new, liberatory project! Panlis (talk) 17:54, 4 June 2014 (UTC).
 * Comment The above wall of text contains so many misconceptions about what Wikipedia is and how things are done here that I hardly know where to start. Let me start with saying that you should comment on the subject at hand, not the editor. My motivations are irrelevant and, in any case, WP requires that we assume good faith from the part of editors with whom we have a difference of opinion. Please read WP:ADHOM. Second, the above seems to assume that I am applying standards that are used for scientific journals to this one. That is untrue. For example, there are many selective bibliographic databases (not the same as library catalogs) that are specialized in political science, or whatever category you want to class this journal in. Further (I'll stop counting now, it's just to cumbersome), if something "cannot be heard easily in the mainstream or sometimes even the "alternative" media", then unfortunately that something is just not notable. WP is an encyclopedia and is not here to promote any ideas or publications. WP reports what is said in neutral, independent reliable sources. Simple things can be sourced to primary, non-independent sources (such as the T&F website of this journal). However, such sources obviously have no impact on notability. Referring to your point "A", people discussing with each other in a certain journal is nothing out of the ordinary, so that does not make a journal notable, unless that debate has been noted outside of the small circle of people publishing in said journal. You are correct that the presence of primary sources in and of itself is no reason to nominate an article for deletion. However, if all available sources are primary and not independent of the journal, then that is an excellent reason to nominate a journal for deletion. And selecting some debates from the journal is already OR, because it is done solely following the opinion of the editor who did the selecting. That the journal "served as a colloquium for a wide range of radical left groups, etc" is not something that some reliable source said, nor is it even something that the journal said (and if it did, that is not the kind of "neutral fact" that can be sourced to primary non-independent sources). It is the interpretation of a WP editor. Point "B" criticizes my use of GScholar and simissing EBSCO as not being selective. However, I did not mention those items to prove absence of notability. Obviously that is not something that can be proven, only notability itself can be established. I mentioned this to show that GS did not give evidence of notability. If GS had shown lots of citations, that would show notability, not the other way around. So all I basically said was that I couldn't find any evidence of notability, which is a standard reason to take an article to AFD. If somebody here has better searching abilities and can show any evidence of notability, then please present it. The argument that I am looking in the wrong place is a straw man. Item "C" criticizes my response to somebody who did think that these scattered references constitute evidence of notability. Now, please decide, either GS can show notability for this journal or it cannot, you cannot have it both ways. Item "D" is a complete misinterpretation and failure to understand what WP regards as a reliable source that shows notability. If we follow your reasoning, then any academic article that ever has been cited 2 or 3 times is notable and we should write an article about it here. As for the long list of references that you posted, I don't see anything that goes towards in-depth coverage of the journal. All the above keep !votes boil down to "ignore all rules" or WP:ILIKEIT. If this journal is as important as several people here so loudly claim, then why is it so difficult to find anything written about the journal? --Randykitty (talk) 18:41, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: By the intensity of these arguments, and by being compelled to comment on every single Keep, one could easily argue that the one who WP:IDONTLIKEIT is no other than the nominator. Cwobeel (talk) 19:21, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment To be honest, I really wonder when you took the time to read carefully the "above wall of text" before dismissing it on the instant, as it is obvious you bypassed plenty of evidence and arguments that I cited, and I really wonder when you managed to read the dozens of references I mentioned and judge if they go "towards an in-depth coverage of the journal"! Most importantly, there is not any rule in Wikipedia saying that there should be an "in-depth coverage of journal" for an entry or a journal to be entered in Wikipedia (see criteria in WP:Journal. Most references cite various articles of the journal, as it is very logical, that adequately show off its chronic and historical importance and valuable researching and reference medium, for every impartial reader. So this argument popped up totally arbitrarily and subjectively, further showing your prejudice and bias. To my mind, the evidence I provided above, replies to your initial and revised allegations, one by one. And as a matter of fact, my remarks were on your actions and documented activity and not an WP:ADHOM or personal attack as you try to demonstrate. An attempt to "play the victim" may not be a good sign of solid argumentation. I had every reason to not have a --naively defined-- "good faith", based on your documented activity, when you initially started adding tags to an entry without contributing even a comma to it, based on dialogue with other contributors here and in other pages, where there are signs of not taking into account independent contributors' documented counter views, and also based on your blatanlty judgmental behaviour towards eponymous academics of the left who tried to testify their opinion in a journal to which they had contributed in the Talk Page of the entry, whom you instantly accused and tagged as suspicious of "canvassing" etc.. Then your remark of yours may not be accidental at all: "people discussing with each other in a certain journal is nothing out of the ordinary, so that does not make a journal notable". In fact Wikipedia itself serves as a tertiary source, so it may itself help substantiate the notability of an entry. This activity of yours reached an unprecedented when you actually dismiss all other arguments by brazenly claiming that "All the above keep !votes boil down to "ignore all rules" or WP:ILIKEIT. If this journal is as important as several people here so loudly claim, then why is it so difficult to find anything written about the journal?". All the above could be a reason for WP:DISRUPTSIGNS: 4,5 and 6.


 * I also replied about the primary sources. Contribution to the entry itself is the best way to amend the entry, something that you never did. Instead you started adding multiple tags on it "from day one" and then, after a few days, and even when some contributors started to edit the entry, you nominated it for deletion. So my commentary was on your activity and only this. Someone can judge the difference of our approach by just looking at the debate.


 * Some of your reply is indicant of your biased argumentation on the matter and shows you did not understand my extended "wall of text" above. E.g. when WP:Journals explicitly say that GScholar is not a medium to use in order show notability, one does not use it at all, --that is s/he does not even refer to it--. So what you say "I mentioned this to show that GS did not give evidence of notability. If GS had shown lots of citations, that would show notability, not the other way around." is totally erroneous. You then still say "If somebody here has better searching abilities and can show any evidence of notability, then please present it.". I just did it along with other contributors, and I think very plausibly.


 * Then you claim that the quote "the journal "served as a colloquium for a wide range of radical left groups, etc" is not something that some reliable source said, nor is it even something that the journal said (and if it did, that is not the kind of "neutral fact" that can be sourced to primary non-independent sources). It is the interpretation of a WP editor." But, only in my vote/comment above, I mentioned a quote of an Oxford Scholar which in fact is only one source of many that may demonstrate that this extract of the entry has a basis. The existance per se, of many citations and references to articles of the journal in books, essays etc. of the left which encompasses the trends above, is also another good indication for the viability of the extract. Many of the dozens of references I provided also can support adequately this claim, but this anyway is something that could be discussed in the Talk Page of the entry, before you start adding tags and nominations for deletion of it! So, and speaking in good faith, instead of giving "lessons" to others about what is an interpretation and what not, why don't you contribute constructively to the entry by adding some of the references that I provided you with, that may support the extract of the entry, or amend the extract itself if you feel it is not totally accurate?Panlis (talk) 19:59, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not going to go into this in detail, because you are clearly not assuming good faith. I do want to note, however, that I started with trying to make of this article a neutral one, conforming to accepted standards like the journal article writing guide, only to be accused of trying to destroy the article and being reverted wholesale. I'm going to stop responding here, given all the bad faith on the part of all participants. I hope that the closing admin will be willing to read through all the (incorrect) arguments being floated here. --Randykitty (talk) 20:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per NJournals. I have access to two huge academic library collections, one in my home state, and one in another state through "visiting scholar" status there, and I did some library searching after reading all the comments here. There simply aren't sources to support the scholarly impact of this defunct journal or to independently verify facts about the journal under the Wikipedia policy on verifiability. Some journals are just very obscure, that's all, and  Wikipedia is not a directory of every obscure journal that has gone out of business. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 20:49, 4 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:SJ and  WP:NJournals.I fully agree with Cwobeel's comments. The importance of a radical Left journal  is judged by citations of its contents and contributors. There are  plenty of such citations on D&N. To decide that a radical Left journal is very obscure because one cannot find it in an obscure state library is ludicrous, to say the least. Try the major university libraries (Harvard, Oxford, Cambridge, London School of Economics e.tc.) for better luck!178.146.93.162 (talk) 21:09, 4 June 2014 (UTC) — 178.146.93.162 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment Is the validity of my concrete argument judged by the number of my edits in the past? Very interesting logic!178.146.93.162 (talk) 22:18, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Not always, but the closing admin needs to take that into account when determining consensus. There have been many shenanigans by people coming to these discussions that were canvassed to do just that and who may not give a hoot about Wikipedia. Cwobeel (talk) 21:32, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:SJ and WP:NJournals. I fully agree with Cwobeel's comment about the disruptive behaviour of the nominator, which I think shows a clear preconception to have this entry deleted at all costs.Autonomy-boy (talk) 21:16, 4 June 2014 (UTC) — Autonomy-boy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment - Per the TL;DR section above: the editorial ideology or topic of focus of a journal shouldn't matter a whit. We need to have an article on every peer-reviewed academic journal, period, in my view. Carrite (talk) 20:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

1. The journal is considered by reliable resources to be influential in its subject area. To satisfy this criteria the journal should be included in a major indexing service in its field. This guideline has been satisfied as D&N is indexed in Alternative Press Index. Who can deny API is not a major service in anti-systemic analysis as is D&N, nor deny EBSCO database is neither reliable nor selective? Randykitty wries on 31 May, “not selective, indeed (EBSCO) does not even limit itself to academic journals but includes many magazines”. So what? Does that mean they are not notable? D&N is also peer reviewed which adds an abundance of credibility to the journal. 2. The journal is frequently cited by other reliable resources. In Panlis most recent edit he has provided sufficient reliable resources citing D&N. This guideline has been fulfilled. 3. The Journal has a historic purpose or a significant history. This criteria is satisfied as the journal has been in existence with a different title, but same content, (the journal has not gone out of business) for twenty-two years and still exists if you all care to subscribe to the journal. Randykitty what was your age 22 years ago? Thus according to wiki guidelines D&N is notable as it has, at least fulfilled one criteria (none-the-less the two other criteria), and the attempt to silence by deletion the journal is disingenuous. As ignorance of the wiki notability guidelines is inadmissible for administrator, especially of Randykitty’s stature, I can only surmise he had a plan to attack D&N (as if it were not already notable), to be blocked indefinitely. "My boss ordered me...", is inadmissible. John sargis (talk) 00:22, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * KEEP According to wiki notability rules for a journal to be notable it must satisfy at least one of three (1. 2. 3.)notability guidelines:


 * keep The journal is important in its field and this is sufficient reason for inclusion.
 * the nominator and I have agreed on 99% of the journal discussions here. Certainly, I continued to maintain the validity of our criteria -- criteria which he and I have played a large part in developing over the years -- based mainly on indexing and citation for academic journals in the academic citation and indexing networks, particularly in the physical and biological  sciences and the "hard" social science  where research and publication patterns resemble those sciences.  Outside that area matters are much more doubtful. In the humanities, citation patterns of weak and inconclusive, indexing does not give a useful separation, and the GNG is in practice totally worthless for all such publications, for essentially nobody writes "substantial" publications about any journals of any sort except the very most famous.  This applies all the more to nonacademic journals. This is a journal of opinion and persuasion, not of academic research in the usual sense. The only rational criterion is the significant presence of the journal within its world of communication and discourse, and I think that has been satisfactorily demonstrated.
 * I am of course considerably concerned at the vehemence of the defense of this article, but I think it is an understandable response to the deletion nomination, which is based on the application of   standards which do not work here,   I know the nominator  does not apply the GNG to academic journals--which is why he and I and the others concerned developed the present standards for these journals,  I am therefore puzzled at the use of them here, where they are just as irrelevant.
 * It should not have been necessary to defend this journal.   Worldcat shows the journal to be  present in over 400 libraries, and that is fully sufficient demonstration of its importance  in the field and therefore its notability. That's a rational standard for inclusion in an encyclopedia.    DGG ( talk ) 05:29, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reasoned comment. As you explain, some of the criteria are difficult to interpret. I don't think, for example, that we can summarily state that a journal like D&N, which existed for a mere 11 years had an "historical purpose" without adequate documentation. Nor do I accept that the handful of citations to its articles demonstrate its influence. In any case, when I solicited your opinion, I was almost 90% certain that you would be in favor of keeping the article. However, if the article is to be kept, I want it to be kept on the basis of rational arguments, not on the basis of the arguments that have been brought forward up till now in this AfD. And you did indeed deliver, I admit forgetting to check WorldCat. That is a rational argument that I can accept and I therefore !vote  weak keep  (I cannot withdraw the nom as there are other people having !voted "delete"). Nevertheless, I would like to comment on some of the remarks made above (I will ignore the doubt being cast on my motivation, weird questions about my age, and other such drivel, I'll just assume that that was caused by the respective users not being very familiar with AfD).  asks me to support my statement about the huge number of non-notable journals that I maintain exist: please see Predatory open access publishing and the link to Beall's list therein, which itself lists a large number of publishers, many of them publishing hundreds of journals.  says "We need to have an article on every peer-reviewed academic journal". I understand the sentiment behind that statement and even agree with it, this is how things should be in an ideal world. Unfortunately, the world is not ideal... Consider the list that I just linked to in the previous phrase. All those journals claim to be peer-reviewed. Many of them even are (albeit bad peer review). How are we going to decide when peer review is really peer review? How will we evaluate its quality? And all this without violating No original research? Should we include all those journals in WP? Should we let Beall decide what comes into WP or not? The reality is that we need inclusion criteria, even for peer-reviewed journals. And the consequence of that is that from time to time we will have an AfD for a journal and delete some of them. --Randykitty (talk) 14:09, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * So, you did not check WorldCat? It may be a good idea then to add WorldCat to the AFD template (Find sources:... alongside JSTOR and others. That would have save the time sunk in this debate. Cwobeel (talk) 14:21, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Neither did anybody else until DGG came here. There are many different types of journals and many different possible sources. WorldCat is rarely one that needs to be consulted. And if the debate had been conducted civilly and assuming good faith, and people would have used the time attacking my motives for searching on how to improve the article and show notability, then it would indeed have taken much less time and effort. --Randykitty (talk) 15:09, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Not to belabor on this, but you could have done the same and avoid the whole thing. Happy editing. Cwobeel (talk) 16:01, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I could and so could have everybody else. I didn't think of it, as I explained, its rarely consulted. But I guess I'm talking to someone with an eidetic memory who never makes the slightest mistake. That I forgot WorldCat is not so strange in the light of the fact that in my experience, the kind of partisan editing that was going on at the article, and even more the vehemence displayed during this debate, are 90% of the time a sure indication that something really, really is not notable. --Randykitty (talk) 16:23, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I am always concerned when some editors show a behavior as if they are the only "defenders of the wiki". That type of ownership when taken to that extreme, did not help either and added to the lengthy back and forth, and with hindsight, a total waste of editors' time. Cwobeel (talk) 18:46, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, when dealing with a publication of any sort, or with an author, or anyone who has ever been an author as part of their career, the first thing I do is check worldCat--it tends to give a quick indication of what the situation is. For example, if for an author I find no items listed, or only 1 or 2 holdings, there's usually no point in doing an exhaustive search for reviews. From the previous arguments I expected to find about 40 holdings here; if so, I would still have said  keep, but it would have been a   more tentative argument. for it would not have been clear to be that the publication was important rather than a little fringy. . This is undoubtedly my library experience, but I think it s relevant experience on this sort of subject, and I would strongly urge others to do this also.   DGG ( talk ) 00:05, 7 June 2014 (UTC)


 * KEEP First, the journal, published only electronically and under a slightly different name, still exists (http://www.inclusivedemocracy.org/journal/), more than 20 years after the first issue of Society& Nature/Democracy & Nature was published.
 * Second, the historical purpose of a journal can only be assessed over time. The now famous Socialisme ou Barbarie journal (Socialisme ou Barbarie) was a very obscure journal indeed at the time of its publication and no major university libraries kept any copies of it at that moment of time.
 * Third, what the nominator says in dismissing at a stroke all other arguments apart from those by other administrators as non-rational is that there is no democratic rationalism involved in wikipedia discussions but only “wiki rationalism”. This implies that the view of any non-administrator on such crucial matters as deleting an article on an important radical Left journal is decorative. If this is so, then it should be said openly by wiki administrators, or, alternatively,  interventions by non-wikipedia administrators should better be banned altogether, so that everybody is clear on how democratic these discussions really are!Rstvr (talk) 22:27, 6 June 2014 (UTC)Rstvr —  Rstvr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. :
 * You're absolutely right that WP is not a democracy and things are not decided based on the number of votes they get (which is why we call them !votes). WP does not exist to publicize things or points of view that are "neglected in the mainstream media". Neither does WP report what a majority of editors think. We do not do our own research. Instead, WP reports what can be verified in reliable secondary sources. If an historical purpose cannot be verified with such sources, then a hundred editors can come and say they think it has such a purpose, but our opinions don't carry any weight if they are not supported by sources. Indeed, "the historical purpose of a journal can only be assessed over time". If at this point in time that is not yet clear, then we'll have to wait until it has become clear. That DGG is an admin (or I myself) is irrelevant, admins can do some menial work that non-admins cannot do, is all. It's just that DGG came with an argument that was independently verifiable. Finally, whether the journal still exists is debatable. The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy started completely new, with different volume numbering and a different publisher. The only continuation is the editor-in-chief. If it were a clear continuation, the the current article should have been renamed to the new journal title, as we habitually do with journals that undergo a name change. --Randykitty (talk) 09:11, 7 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: The difference between a proper encyclopedia, (Britannica, Routledge e.tc. - which by the way has an entry on D&N) and Wikipedia is that the former are reliable sources of knowledge because the entries are written by experts on their field who know what they are talking about, unlike of course administrators like yourself who obviously have no idea of what a radical Left journal is about in general and what its contribution to knowledge, research and politics has been in particular. This is why you rely instead on ‘verified reliable sources’. But for anybody with an elementary knowledge of the philosophy of science this is impossible, simply because, unlike ‘hard sciences’, there is no (and can never be) any consensus, let alone an objective truth, in the analysis of social phenomena, as it is mostly possible with natural phenomena. All this is presumably unknown to people who count the references of what they consider ‘reliable’ sources (usually ‘systemic’ sources) in order to assess the notability of an entry. However, Wikipedia could play a significant role in breaking the ‘systemic’ monopoly of knowledge by providing ‘alternative’ sources of knowledge and social research, and up to now it was doing just this to a significant extent, and this is the main reason of its appeal to visitors. If it now starts deleting ‘alternative’ journals like D&N and tomorrow continues with entries about alternative political projects and theorists, simply because there is not enough ‘systemic’ evidence to support them, then Wikipedia will not only  become a second class orthodox encyclopedia but, even worse, as the well known philosopher and academic Arran Gare put it, this would imply that “we are in a sorry state, coming closer to 1984”—a comment whose significance obviously escaped your knowledge and, like a good wiki bureaucrat, you promptly dismissed it as a “SPA comment not policy based!” 94.66.3.101 (talk) 14:17, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * With your disdain for (and misunderstanding of) the way WP works, I wonder why you even bother coming here. Please read "What Wikipedia is not" and then go create your own wiki somewhere else so that you can push your POV without any interruption by wikicrats. --Randykitty (talk) 14:54, 7 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I expected a reply like this from you attempting to create a ‘wiki front’ against 'outsiders' but anyone wishing to understand my point will understand your attempted distortion of it. I repeat my main point so that other administrators, more broad-minded than you, could understand what I am really saying:  “Wikipedia could play a significant role in breaking the ‘systemic’ monopoly of knowledge by providing ‘alternative’ sources of knowledge and social research, AND UP TO NOW IT WAS DOING JUST THIS TO A SIGNIFICANT EXTENT, AND THIS IS THE MAIN REASON OF ITS APPEAL TO VISITORS.94.66.3.101 (talk) 15:17, 7 June 2014 (UTC)


 * 94.66.3.101, you are not helping the article with this line of argument. WP in an encyclopedia, and the purpose of an encyclopedia is to report on what is already notable in the world, not to bring neglected topics to attention nor to advance the frontiers of knowledge. "Breaking the existing monopoly of knowledge" is indeed something we do, but in a different sense than you say: we break the existing barriers to knowledge from the paid system of publishing, providing free access to information. But the information we provide access to is about those things that are already known, and already recognized for their importance. Indeed, we do try to correct for the systematic bias of coverage in conventional print sources by somewhat relaxing the standards for materials that may not be readily accessible in conventional forms. But the attempt to bring to attention what ought to be noticed but has not yet been is what we call promotionalism, and we avoid it. That an article promotes something not yet notable is cause for deletion, not inclusion.  Breaking these sorts of social and intellectual  barriers must be done elsewhere, for we are not qualified to judge what deserves to be importance--all we can do is to try to determine what already is.  We are not purely orthodox: we cover topics outside the mainstream as well as in the mainstream, but only if they are notable in their own fields, and the public interested in those fields will therefore want information on them.
 * If this publication was unknown or almost unknown, we would not cover it. The argument for having an article about it is that it is already well known in its field, as shown by its inclusion in library collections, and by the use of material in it from a wide range of other publications, and by its choice as a publication medium by notable authors.  DGG ( talk ) 03:49, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


 * DGG thanks for the useful information. Obviously, I was not trying to help the article. I was simply trying to find out whether wikipedia is really an alternative encyclopedia, as seen by Arran Gare above and many people at large. Clearly, providing free dissemination of systemic knowledge on social phenomena is not what many activists fighting for a better world had in mind when talking about an alternative encyclopedia.85.74.194.119 (talk) 06:38, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Randy has found an error in my argument: over 3/4 of the libraries hold only the electronic version, and most of those are in the habit of adding to their catalog every title in a collection to which they subscribe. Other libraries, including my own, does not do that, but adds only the ones selected by the subject bibliographers as worth adding. The OCLC record does not clearly distinguish, though there are normally    separate master  records, libraries often add their holdings information to one of them without paying attention to that, considering the distinction a mere format difference. If one wants total holdings, one normally adds them all together.  (The diagnostic feature for the situation  is whether the list contains libraries one would not expect to have it, and lacks those that one would) The OCLC record here,  shows the libraries that all of them or almost all did hold the print, showing 74 libraries. This is the minimum number of true subscriptions,  and my estimate of he total number of libraries that would be truly subscribing is about 150-200. Now, that covers the US+Canada+a few major research libraries elsewhere--the number of libraries worldwide for academic material is usually estimated as double the US rate. This gives a true worldwide subscriptions of between 300 - 400 (I didnt correct for non-US earlier, but Ebsco etc have a higher reach in the US). This is still very significant, I I think does show notability -- though not as clearly as I thought. (I will remember to be more careful in checking in the future)   DGG ( talk ) 19:43, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * DGG, I am sorry, but given all these uncertainties, I am going back to my original !vote. I do not think that the WorldCat counts, given these imponderables, establish notability. --Randykitty (talk) 12:17, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Randykitty the link you provide to “what WP is not” does not tell us what it is and is thus in contradiction! Defining something by what it is not is a really poor exhibition for rational thinking that does not press forward ideas much further than the negative. You claim to obtain rationality, for anyone who has read the exchanges (4 june {your italics}: I gave a detailed analysis of why I think the sources are insufficient) by dismissing and adamantly rejecting all other users arguments, and even a ‘good’ administrator included (DGG “keep” vote of 6 June: The journal is important in its field and this is sufficient reason for inclusion…the nominator and I have agreed on 99% of the journal discussions here. Certainly, I continued to maintain the validity of our criteria -- criteria which he and I have played a large part in developing over the years… It should not have been necessary to defend this journal. Worldcat shows the journal to be present in over 400 libraries [2], and that is fully sufficient demonstration of its importance in the field and therefore its notability. That's a rational standard for inclusion in an encyclopedia.), you failed to reply to my “keep” rationale even due to the fact that D&N is notable as a journal of rational argument, according to wiki guidelines. Furthermore, DGG performs a pure bureaucratic maneuver that he simply counts the number of libraries subscribing to D&N as a criterion of notability. On 6 June you heap praise on the only 1 rational argument in the whole lot, according to you, that is given by the ‘good’ administrator to the ‘bad’ administrator where you change your vote from “delete” to “weak keep”. “I will ignore” the, facetious (you could have hypothesized) “weird question about my age”. Then why didn’t you reply to me as mine was not a remark or comment, but a rational argument? On 10 June DGG says you found a hole in his argument, but that nevertheless D&N “does show notability”. On 11 June you again switch your vote back to your original vote to “delete”! Your claim of 4 June to “detailed analysis” leads one to think that you are on a mission to delete D&N as a notable journal from Wikipedia as your vote today exhibits. The discussion should have been closed after 7 full days, but here it is some 11 full days! Have the last few days of debate become less acrimonious? It seems you have dug into every conceivable excuse to delete “D&N”. If, according to your interpretation and against the “good” DGG, Worldcat is not reliable, then does that make the libraries which use Worldcat less reliable by extension? If no, how would Wikipedia make that determination? It is strange a privileged wiki-rule you used to claim “off-wiki” canvassing  against two users without any proof, a SPA crime, (as charged by you on 3 June), but “on-wiki” canvassing is not a crime, since you enlisted the expertise help of DGG, the record of which has now since disappeared from DGG talk page (==Articles for deletion/Democracy & Nature (4th nomination) ==Dear David, this AfD debate is getting quite acrimonious. I'm backing out, but perhaps you could have a look. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 20:34, 4 June 2014 (UTC)!  Your vote, to avoid irrationality, should at least have remained “weak keep”. John sargis (talk) 19:42, 11 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I am not going to reply to the above rant, except for one point: the accusation of on-wiki canvassing. You correctly cited my post on DGG's talk, not asking to come help me, but to ask him for his opinion. You might also be interested in the exchange I had with DGG on this subject on my own talk page (User talk:Randykitty). Thanks for following WP:AGF. It's becoming harder and harder for me to follow that guideline myself in this case. --Randykitty (talk) 20:16, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I am responding to the things you have said. Please refrain from categorizing my reply as a violent rave (there must be some wiki rule about your refrain). My questions are based on fact and you choose not to reply to them, but you change the subject to bad faith, a rule you admit is "becoming harder and harder" for you to follow, just as your only admission to my very first “keep” was “weird question about my age”. Could it be that it is bad faith not to answer the questions? Anyway it seems like a convenient way to back out of answering my questions. Of course perhaps you are feeling the pain of the deconstruction of your arguments and choose not to reply to my questions about D&N notability, but I cannot read your mind and therefore, would like answers to my questions. John sargis (talk) 23:46, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I have explained my thinking at length above (poor admin who'll have to wade through all this verbiage, small wonder nobody has turned up yet to close this AfD...) That you seem unable to accept that somebody, based on the same evidence, comes to a different conclusion than you (if WP were a democracy, we might call that dissent) is your problem, not mine. If you think that it is a problem that I am flexible and change my mind when confronted with convincing evidence, and then change it back when that evidence turns out to be less convincing than initially thought, again, that's your problem, not mine. BTW, you might want to read WP:COI, given your apparent connection with the journal's successor. The vehemence displayed by others here make me thinkl= that, just perhaps, they might have a teenie weenie connection to the journal, too. --Randykitty (talk) 11:05, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

References


 * 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.