Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Educate~


 * 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.  → Call me  Hahc  21  05:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Educate~

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No third-party sources, not indexed in any selective major database. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals. Randykitty (talk) 13:19, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Indexed in Education Source, which is "the most authoritative, full-text database for education scholarship" and "covers topics from early childhood education to parent-teacher relations" according to EBSCO. Freemrpj (talk) 26 February 2014 — Preceding undated comment added 17:03, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Yep, EBSCO has an active PR department, praising their products. --Randykitty (talk) 17:45, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment "In August 2013 the University of Leeds sold the British Education Index database of journal articles and the British Education Thesaurus to EBSCO Information Services". That's a fact - not PR. Freemrpj (talk) 26 February 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.40.77.132 (talk) 18:17, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 20:10, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Comment - my college gets the online EBSCOhost, but I am not sure about the notability of this one. Bearian (talk) 15:37, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  → Call me  Hahc  21  18:04, 16 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - As the Chair of the Educate~ Editorial Board I would like a decision on this. Educate~ is indexed in the most relevant database for Education and since its creation in 2001 has been published by the Institute of Education, University of London. "The Institute of Education is a world-leading university specialising in education and the social sciences. Founded in 1902, the Institute currently has more than 7,000 students and 800 staff. In January 2014, the Institute was recognised by Ofsted for its 'Outstanding' initial teacher training across primary, secondary and further education. In the 2014 QS World University Rankings, the Institute was ranked number one for education worldwide.  In the most recent Research Assessment Exercise two-thirds of the publications that the IOE submitted were judged to be internationally significant and over a third were judged to be "world leading"."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.82.32.179 (talk) 10:28, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Congratulations with the excellent evaluation of your institute, its production, and your colleagues. Unfortunately, notability is not inherited, so this has no bearing on the notability of this journal. --Randykitty (talk) 15:15, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it had. My main point is where it is indexed, which you have ignored. I thought that was most relevant. I would simply like a decision: keep or delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.82.32.179 (talk) 16:16, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The only database that currently carries it (EBSCO) is not very selective and hence does not establish notability. As for a decision, that's not up to me but to the closing admin. --Randykitty (talk) 17:24, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. While it's great to have more open access journals, the editorial board appears to be all doc students from the institution and from what I can tell, the journal is not (yet?) widely cited. A Google Scholar search of the title and the ISBN shows two pages of citations, which while a start is not sufficient significant coverage by the GNG to my eyes. Moreover, I can't find any coverage about the journal itself, its history or influence or articles written about the journal itself. There isn't enough material to sustain an encyclopedic article and there is no desirable target for a cheap redirect. (?) Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. Eye close font awesome.svg czar  ♔  02:42, 21 March 2014 (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.