Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estudios Sociológicos


 * 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. Please contact me or another admin if you wish to have the article userfied. Black Kite (talk) 11:15, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Estudios Sociológicos

 * – ( 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 "one of only two sociological journals in Mexico, has periodicity and quality, international recognition. read source added." The source added is a PhD thesis. There is no evidence of any international recognition. Having "periodicity and quality" or being one of only two journals are not criteria for notability. PROD reason therefore still stands. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 18:15, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Notability is eastablished because:
 * it is considered a reliable source
 * 2 it is frequently cited by other realiable sources see here for an example of a cited article and here to check out more articles that are cited elsewhere.
 * 3 it has historical purpose: is the second journal of sociology established in Mexico and the first one since 1940. It is reasonable to suggest that being one of two journals in a huge country like Mexico might mean that this journal plays or played notable role in that science in that country.


 * Thus the journal is cited in independent sources. Indexed in the selective databases that Randykity cites (which databases are these? Its rather un-transparent to invoke them and not linking or telling what selection of databases are they) have no primacy to establish notability. Dentren  |  Ta lk  18:37, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment There are many selective databases and this journal is not in a single one of those. Some are mentioned in WP:NJournals, but it really is not feasible to list all of those databases. Being considered a reliable source is not necessarily something that is established by a mention in a PhD thesis and in any case is not something that is mentioned in GNG or NJournals. That some of its articles are cited is to be expected, even "fake journals" (which this one certainly is not) are cited, so let alone legit journals. Clicking the link to GScholar above, we see several cited articles. The highest-cited ones appear to be not from this journal (the title is of course very general, making searching difficult), but nothing really striking. This amount of citations would not make a single individual researcher notable, let alone a complete journal. Finally, the claim of a historical purpose is really very weak, and unsourced at that (unless that's also sourced to that PhD thesis). All together, I strongly doubt that "Notability is eastablished". Sorry. --Randykitty (talk) 18:46, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. Do the secret databases used by Randkitty appropriately cover non-English language journals? (if so show it). The links I provided show that a large number of articles published the in Estudios Sociológicos are cited in other reliable journals, not just a few ones. Appreciation in a prize-winning PhD thesis about "Academical models and scientific legitimacy" is an excellent way to establish notability. An additional point is that the journal is published by El Colegio de México which is a serious and established institution in Mexico (won the Princess of Asturias Awards in social science in 2001). Dentren  |  Ta lk  18:57, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:22, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:22, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:22, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment If you don't like those "secret databases", that's no problem. No need to be in any database at all if it can be shown that this passes WP:GNG, which trumps all specialty guidelines. That would make this journal rather special, as preciously few journals pass that guideline (which is why we have NJournals), but, hey, suit yourself! Do note, however, that GNG require multiple in-depth reliable sources. Even counting that prize-winning thesis and being published by the notable Colegio, we're not there yet. --Randykitty (talk) 22:14, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I can not know if I "like" (Randkitys words not mine) or not something you have refused to share. I make no secret of the databases I search so will share what I found: Redalyc lists it. And remember Randkity.. listing and indexing, even if you wish, is not the sole way to establish notability for a journal. Dentren  |  Ta lk  23:03, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Isn't that what I am saying just above???? All you have to do is find multiple reliable sources covering the journal in depth and GNG is met, which trumps all. Redalyc is indeed the online platform that the journal uses to give readers access to its articles. It's a publication platform, not a bibliographic database (such as the Social Sciences Citation Index, for example). Anyway, we seem to agree that this journal's notability is not established through coverage in databases, so let's concentrate on those multiple reliable sources covering it in depth. --Randykitty (talk) 07:50, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment. *No, there is no agreement. I have to ask Randkitty to stop putting words in my mouth. This is the second he does this to me in this discussion. Regarding what matters I have presented a respectable and highly (for this purpose) relevant work where the journal quality and historical importance is assessed, I have presented information about the publisher which is an entity internationally recognised for its social science studies, now I further present its inclusion in the database Latindex in addition to Redalyc which do select material to be included. Social Sciences Citation Index Randkity mention is focused on English language journals and is not adequate to evaluate Spanish language journals. Dentren |  Ta lk  08:31, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You really seem to be doing your best to misunderstand what I am saying... I just mentioned the SSCI as an example of a bibliographic database, to show that such a database is different from a publishing platform like Redalyc. Sociology journals certainly can be notable without being included in the SSCI (but it is a misconception that the SSCI focusses on English language journals, it includes many journals in other languages, including Spanish; the fact that it includes more journals in English than other languages is just a reflection of the fact that the majority of journals are published in English). Redalyc is selective in the same sense that publishers like Elsevier and Springer are selective about shich journals they are going to publish. Anyway, I maintain that the evidence put forward does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals and rest my case, leaving the floor to Dentren. --Randykitty (talk) 08:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Now I have heard enough of Randkitys flawed argumentation (focus on few notability criteria, ignoring or dismissing evidence of notability, and attributing me opinions I never held). I would like to hear the opinion of a third party.  Dentren  |  Ta lk  09:53, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 19:22, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: This is a messy situation. The debate just above conflates prestige and notability. As an academic, I know that I want a list of the best journals, and that means best editorial boards for peer-review, quickest and most reliable retraction policies, etc., but when we're talking about an entry in an encyclopedia, we're asking for a different set of criteria. User:Dentren can argue that this is a prestigious or useful journal, but that, in a sense, doesn't help. Ideally, we're only going to have articles on things that other people have written about. So, is this a discussed journal? Are there editorials about the journal in other places (the Sociology professional association's newsletter/publication)? The article isn't very informative at present. (It doesn't tell us when the journal was founded, its editorial board practice, its hosting.) Hithladaeus (talk) 23:56, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak delete: Arguments put forth here seem to me to suggest that it's a reliable journal, but people write about Science, Nature, Journal of Cellular Biology, and even PLOS-1. They moan and bewail the failings of JAMA and NEJM. In the absence of other clear markers of notability, we could find commentary on the journal, but it's lacking, too, so the journal fails NJOURNAL. Hithladaeus (talk) 00:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC) Amendment: Userfy would also be a good idea, in my opinion. Hithladaeus (talk) 17:05, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, Hithladaeus it is a discussed journal: Estudios Sociológicos discussed in the journal Sociológica and a discussion here on its role in sociology in Mexico. Dentren  |  Ta lk  13:18, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Not sure what the first link is. The second is an in-passing mention, not an in-depth description. --Randykitty (talk) 13:48, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * To be fair, it is a discussion of the journal. I'm not sure one, and brief, is sufficient. I know that it's ridiculous to hold it up to the standards of something like Technology Review, even, because truly academic journals just don't get that much discussion, but I don't think one comment on the role of the journal is quite enough. It is close, though. I would suggest userfying and an ability to return to article space when references are more in line with requirements. How does everyone else feel about that? Hithladaeus (talk) 17:05, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hithladaeus, by your statement I get the sense you have been confused by Randykitty's comment above. are There is a whole article on Estudios Sociologicos, and a reputable thesis discussing the journal in detail, and establishing its historical notoriety. Dentren  |  Ta lk  17:13, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * I'd suggest accepting inclusion in two out of the three four Latindex, Redalyc, LILACS, SciELO as sufficient notability for journals in Latin America. Otherwise we're setting the bar too high for historically under-represented regions (Africa, too). These three have their own inclusion criteria for internal quality control. It'd be useful to distinguish between being published as part of their journal fleet and only being indexed. Fgnievinski (talk) 03:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 19:55, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * None of those is selective in the sense of WP:NJournals. And I'm all for increasing our coverage of under-represented regions. But that should be done by writing articles on subjects concerning those regions where we have reliable sources verifying notability, not by having different standards depending on where something comes from. --Randykitty (talk) 22:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:NJournals needs to be globalized: Wikipedia talk:Notability (academic journals). Fgnievinski (talk) 22:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Far as I can see, NJournals is not regionally restricted. Sources may come from anywhere and can be in any language. We may want to battle regional bias as much as we want, but without sources that establish notability such as is the case here, I don't think there's a lot we can do. --Randykitty (talk) 06:55, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NJOURNAL. A single article and a passing mention are not enough to meet the notability criteria (either GNG or NJOURNAL, the latter only being an essay, rather than a guideline, but the article is still below the requirements of GNG). Inks.LWC (talk) 19:00, 15 July 2015 (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.