Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ergo: An Open Access Journal of Philosophy


 * 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:54, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Ergo: An Open Access Journal of Philosophy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NJOURNAL - a recently started academic journal with FOUR articles in a single issue three issues to-date. Undoubtedly WP:TOOSOON. — kashmiri  TALK  16:26, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 17:50, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not four articles: this new journal, launched in 2014, so far has three volumes (one per year) and a total of 45 articles, not 4 (see full list of volumes and issues at http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/idx/e/ergo/12405314.*). The journal is published by Michigan Publishing, and its editorial board consists of a large number of professional philosophers in reputable departments (accessible at http://www.ergophiljournal.org/editors.html). It is arguably much, much more selective than a number of other philosophy journals (see its acceptance statistics at https://www.ergosubmissions.org/statistics/). (fwiw, I'm not associated with the journal). This journal was listed as one of the top 20 philosophy journals in this philosophy blog (widely read in the profession): http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2015/09/the-top-20-general-philosophy-journals-2015.html (Ycomt (talk) 18:22, 7 June 2016 (UTC))
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:58, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:58, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Unfortunately, none of this goes towards meeting NJournals or GNG. The "widely read" blog has 17 followers and Ergo is listed 19th in this online poll of unclear significance. The publisher establishes that this is not a fake predatory journal, but does not convey notability (WP:NOTINHERITED). The same goes for the editorial board. If the journal is "much, much more selective" than other similar journals, it will likely get indexed in selective databases somewhere in the future and at that point it will become notable. However, it is not up to us to anticipate this event. --Randykitty (talk) 07:55, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * I understand that you want to wait for indexing in selective databases. But that doesn't mean that the journal itself isn't selective: the link I've given shows that its acceptance rate is typical of highly selective journals in that discipline. The blog is read by more than 17 people (where did you get that?), otherwise I don't think that it would be mentioned in Brian Leiter's page or in the NYT (for instance, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/14/us/14beliefs.html). I agree that the poll isn't very significant, but the fact that the journal is listed among the top 20 journals should be an indication of its notability since there are many more than 20 philosophy journals. But again, I understand that you want to wait for some other indexing. (Ycomt (talk) 14:08, 8 June 2016 (UTC))

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 08:32, 15 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Here are a few additional references to consider. This journal is indexed on the DOAJ . It is also recommended by the American Philosophical Association . More anecdotally, it is also recommended by the editorial board of Hypatia: A Journal of Feminist Philosophy. (Ycomt (talk) 00:11, 16 June 2016 (UTC))
 * Unfortunately, none of that contributes to notability. DOAJ is not selective in the sense of NJournals (it includes any OA journal, except the most blatant predatory ones). Being included in a list of links is hardly a full-blown recommendation by the APA. The Hypatia list in which Ergo is included is explicitly said to be based on "One respondent to our survey", their editorial board is not mentioned... --Randykitty (talk) 08:09, 16 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete but with no prejudice against it coming back in the future. The reality of academic work is that it takes time for persons, organizations and journals to build a solid reputation. This may have speeded up in recent years with online publishing, but the slow conversation of academia is still pretty slow. If there is as yet no evidence that it is considered a major journal in its field, then it needs to wait for a WP article. Since WP is not a venue for promotion, waiting should have no effect on the journal itself. LaMona (talk) 20:46, 19 June 2016 (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.