Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IZA Journal of Labor Economics


 * 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   redirect to  Institute for the Study of Labor. One keep !vote recognized the possibility for a redirect, the other was WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Redirected to publisher. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:22, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

IZA Journal of Labor Economics

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article was PRODded and then de-PRODded. For the discussion about that, see Talk:IZA Journal of Labor Economics here. Prod reason was: "Non-notable relatively new journal that has published a grand total of 17 articles since it was established in October 2012. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Prod reason still stands, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 18:47, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete without prejudice to recreation. The subject appears to fall short of WP:NJournals as it stands. This may however be a reflection of its relative newness. That said, after reading the arguments by the article's creator on the talk page, I came away unconvinced of current notability. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:43, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge  It is difficult to evaluate new journals. Among the factors librarians use for this, is whether they are by an established published,   whether the authors of the first articles are from major institutions, and whether any of the articles first published get a substantial number of citations to them. SPring is the 2nd most important commercial publisher; essentially all the authors are from major institutions in the major science publishing coutnries, and of the first dozen articles published there are ones with citations on 49, 24, and 18. The journal is also indexed in the 2 principle economics subject indexes. I think this is sufficient. Since the publishing institute is a notable one with a WP article, at the very least the content could be merged and redirected to Institute for the Study of Labor.  DGG ( talk ) 07:13, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * comment Every publisher publishes the occasional dud and Springer is no exception. Examples are the International Journal of Sexuality and Gender Studies and Research on Language and Computation, which existed only for a limited time and then folded. I think that it is therefore unjust to assume implicit notability for a journal from a large publisher as opposed to a journal from a smaller publisher. The economics indexes, as far as I know, are not very selective: as long as something has a bearing on economics, they'll want to cover it. I don't see a problem, though, with having a brief mention in the article on the Institute for the Study of Labor. --Randykitty (talk) 15:10, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Please note that there is a second existing article on the IZA_Journal_of_Migration. There also 3 additional journals, IZA Journal of Development Economics, IZA Journal of Labor Policy and IZA Journal of European Labor Studies that had a seemingly similar successful start, though they are similarly not included in SSCI so far and have no article yet, though I would like to work on these during the next weeks. I think given the contributions by well-known scholars in the fields and the character of open access, which is still an exception at least in economics, the journals have a sufficient degree of notability, though it is indeed difficult to find independent sources at the time being. Iwonderwhereifloatnext (talk) 14:36, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment That there are other journals published by the IZA does not add any notability. If anything, the simultaneous launch of several journals increases the risk that they are overreaching themselves and that some of those journals will tank. OA is nowadays not an exception in any field anymore and even though there are probably more OA medical journals, economics is not an exception. Even if this were true, though, it would not really be anything special, given the ubiquitousness of OA journals all over the place nowadays, being the first in some subfield is not a notable feat any more. And as far as I can see, a journal that after 1.5 years cannot get more than 1 article per month published, is hard on its way into oblivion. I may be wrong about that, but the same goes for those predicting a glowing future for this journal and my crystal ball just fell in shards. --Randykitty (talk) 15:10, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Was not meant to show notability, just information for the curios reader. Thanks for helpfully pointing out to WP:CRYSTAL, but as you can see both in the article and the comments so far, I do not try to predict anything according to the future of the journals, neither "its way into oblivion" nor a "glowing future". All information in the article is based on current information on the journal. Iwonderwhereifloatnext (talk) 14:29, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The reference to CRYSTAL is meant to indicate that we cannot predict whether or not this journal will become notable. At this point, it is simply WP:TOOSOON. --Randykitty (talk) 14:41, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm neutral with regard to notability, but would it also be "too soon" if, say, Elsevier started an open access journal last August? Also, if EconLit counts as a selective database, then that probably would establish notability here since this journal is indexed in it. Jinkinson   talk to me  02:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * As far as I am concerned, TOOSOON would also apply to a new Elsevier journal. EconLit is not very selective, as far as I can judge. --Randykitty (talk) 12:07, 20 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, NorthAmerica1000 09:53, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Institute for the Study of Labor Keep Publications have a low bar to inclusion on Wikipedia, because as editors we know the benefit of being able to use Wikipedia to check out our sources.  What matters here is WP:V verifiability, not WP:N notability.  There is no dispute but that there is reliable primary material.  Without other sourcing this is a reason to merge as being non-notable, but not an argument to delete.  I see no evidence in the nomination that the WP:ATD alternatives to deletion were considered.  Unscintillating (talk) 06:30, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed I didn't consider any alternatives, given the absolute lack of notability (in my eyes). --Randykitty (talk) 11:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * So in your viewpoint, lack of wp:notability means that there are no alternatives to deletion? Unscintillating (talk) 23:31, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * In your viewpoint, is there ever a reason for deletion? --Randykitty (talk) 11:51, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for asking. I've been labeled a deletionist once and four times I've been labeled an inclusionist.  That says more about the people doing the labeling than it says about me.  All of our policies are marked, "this page documents...a widely accepted standard that all editors must normally follow.  Here are the nutshells from our WP:Editing policy and from our WP:Deletion policy:
 * Please support our policies. Unscintillating (talk) 22:38, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit baffled. I don't see any support for notability, no independent sources. If that is not a reason to propose an article for deletion, then I don't know what would. I don't see that as being in disagreement with any of our policies. --Randykitty (talk) 12:29, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Is WP:PRESERVE a policy? (yes)  Is WP:ATD a policy?  (yes)  In your viewpoint, does lack of wp:notability mean that there are no WP:ATD alternatives to deletion?  Unscintillating (talk) 01:55, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks to me like you're arguing that we should do away with AFD :-) Anyway, the only thing we have at this point is a website confirming that the journal exists. There is no independent information that can be merged anywhere. The fact that the journal exists can be mentioned in Institute for the Study of Labor ("the institute publishes an academic journal, the IZA Journal of Labor Economics"), but I really don't consider that "merging", which in my eyes implies some more information. --Randykitty (talk) 11:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * So, asking you to compare your viewpoint about wp:notability with the policy WP:ATD, is a closet attempt to end AfD? Unscintillating (talk) 00:13, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, now we have some points of agreement. There is a sentence that can be added to Institute for the Study of Labor.  This means that we have presumptive agreement on a place to redirect the title of the current topic.  There is no argument (there could be, but there hasn't been) that any of the existing four sentences or the three references in the current article violate content policies.  So there is no content-policy reason to delete and redirect.  Everything else from there is a matter for the editors at the target article; including the WP:DUE of merging all four sentences from the current article, the addition of the four additional journals mentioned, and the potential to create a breakout article List of academic journals published at the Institute for the Study of Labor.  If there is no objection, I will change my !vote to redirect and merge.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:13, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You're putting words in my mouth. Two of the three "references" are just links to the journal's own homepage (they just look different because they have been given different titles). The third reference is just a brief mention on a blog-type website (written by a postdoc) and of unclear notability. There is much information around that can be verified in reliable sources, but if there is no notability, there is no reason to include it on WP. So, yes, I'd be fine with redirecting this article and a short remark. I oppose merging everything that currently is in the article because that is not justified. --Randykitty (talk) 12:02, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The questions I asked remain unanswered. Unscintillating (talk) 02:02, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * As for two of your points, I don't agree that AfD provides standing to bind editors against editing the encyclopedia. Unscintillating (talk) 02:02, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for confirming that there is agreement with redirect and adding a short remark to the target article. I've taken the editorial prerogative of stubifying six journals at Institute for the Study of Labor, and changed my !vote.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:02, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * As for two of your points, I don't agree that AfD provides standing to bind editors against editing the encyclopedia. Unscintillating (talk) 02:02, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for confirming that there is agreement with redirect and adding a short remark to the target article. I've taken the editorial prerogative of stubifying six journals at Institute for the Study of Labor, and changed my !vote.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:02, 29 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete, indeed without prejudice of recreation. May be WP:TOOSOON, time will tell. New journals are judged on a scale of multiple years, with selective indices such as WoS requiring 5+ years of steady publication before the journal is even considered for inclusion. EconLit and RePEc are non-selective indices, in particular RePEc is more a repository than an index.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 13:57, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * As per WP:V, the threshold for inclusion is verifiability. Unscintillating (talk) 17:04, 29 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.