Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European Journal of Sustainable Development


 * 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. SoWhy 10:40, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

European Journal of Sustainable Development

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I'm nominating this on behalf of, who WP:PRODed this with the rationale: "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG."

While I agree that on its face value, this seems to fail WP:NJOURNALS, there was a lot of (possibly unreliable) evidence for notability through indexing when I reviewed the draft and moved it to mainspace. Putting this through AFD so this evidence can now be evaluated in greater details. For now I'm myself neutral on deletion. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:17, 10 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:19, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:20, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:20, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Tyw7</i>  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:20, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

The prime evidence of notability I have is that the journal has a (seemingly) decent h-index in the field of sustainable development, ranking at #9. While I don't really trust Index Copernicus, they listed the journal as being indexed in a | a lot more than just the four database mentioned in the article, although the site has now been updated and lists "Worldcat, EBSCO, ISI Web of Science (WoS), Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), Cambridge Scientific Abstracts (CSA, Proquest), ZBD, Ulrich's periodicals, AGRO, Google Scholar". Index Copernicus isn't something I consider a reliable source, but the claims merit investigation. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:21, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: IC is indeed not reliable at all (Jeffrey Beall had it on his list of fake indexing services and as far as I know, publishers can put any info they want in it). For example, it is misleading to say that this is indexed in WoS, which almost everybody interprets as the Science Citation Index, because this is only in ESCI, not very selective at all (it even contains some predatory journals). None of the databases listed above is even remotely selective in the sense of NJournals. Not sure whether the nom counts as a !vote for me, but in case it doesn't, my !vote obviously is "delete". --Randykitty (talk) 14:38, 10 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not seeing mention in selective indexing services is already a big red flag. I'd usually want to see a bit more substance in reporting on the journal too beyond it simply existing to satisfy WP:NJOURNAL. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:40, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 02:32, 11 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is more or less purely a database entry now, with no in-depth content, and no evidence that such content can be sourced. We don't have the multiple in-depth independent sources required by WP:GNG, and the only attempt at a claim on WP:NJournals is the indexing which as already argued above is not selective enough to count. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:03, 13 July 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.