Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning


 * 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Valoem   talk   contrib  17:10, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable journal. No independent refs. No sign of coming close to meeting WP:GNG. Created by editor with a similar name to the editor of the journal. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * with respect I do not think that you are in a position to judge the notability of this journal. It is indexed in leading indices, and also appears in the ACM digital library. It has published most of the leading researchers in the field, including Mike Sharples, John Traxler and Ages Kukulska Hulme.Dparsonsnz (talk) 04:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * As the text says, it is the official journal of the International Association for Mobile Learning, a lively academic community http://www.iamlearn.org/. I've included the links now. I do not see any reason for deleting it. Best, Christoph Pimmer (having reviewed many of the journals contribution). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.86.223.2 (talk) 09:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC) — 147.86.223.2 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep Indexed in Scopus and ACM digital library, so meets notability criteria of WP:NJournals. COI is a concern, but the article in present form is not particularly promotional. A ref should be added confirming the indexing; I added one a while ago, but it was non-independent and rejected. A notable journal and an article with surmountable problems suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 04:44, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:NJournals is a WP:ESSAY not a WP:policy. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:07, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per Mark viking, meets WP:NJournals. Softlavender (talk) 07:15, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Go to Google Scholar and search for all articles published in International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, then skim through the first few pages of output from that search - you can immediately get the sense of a coherent and developing research agenda, of many distinguished authors, and of a number of papers that have been very widely cited. Note: I have reviewed papers for this journal, albeit not frequently. JN — Preceding unsigned comment added by JulianNewman (talk • contribs) 13:54, 24 April 2014 (UTC)  — JulianNewman (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * The page is fine and should be kept as it adds value. There is no reason to delete it just because the page was created by the editor of the journal. This is providing valuable information even if the editor did initially provide it. The page is well written and so no edits have really been needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.169.85.84 (talk) 23:54, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep It should be noted that neither of the above IPs provide any valid policy-based arguments. Obviously a minor journal for now. However, being included in Scopus is a pass of WP:NJournals. --Randykitty (talk) 10:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep The Journal has merit. It is indexed both in Scopus and ACM Digital Library. That it serves a small community, should in no way prevent it from being listed in Wikipedia. Disclaimer: I serve on the Editorial Board of the Journal, have reviewed many articles in that capacity and can attest to the bona-fide way in which the journal operates and is run. As for the Editor-in-Chief being the creator of the page, while there is a clear bias, this is a positive action and clearly within his remit. I cannot see how this detracts in any way from the quality of the content in Wikipedia. -Joaquim Jorge (http://web.ist.utl.pt/jorgej)(talk • contribs) 10:27, 22 April 2014 (UTC) Joaquim.a.jorge (talk) 10:33, 22 April 2014 (UTC) — Joaquim.a.jorge (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * For anybody who is uncertain about the merits of IJMBL, I would suggest the following exercise:
 * None of those arguments are policy-based, though. --Randykitty (talk) 14:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

KEEP - yes it is a relatively new journal but it is increasing in its significance and the growing number of citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.40.32 (talk) 21:33, 24 April 2014 (UTC) — 87.112.40.32 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * 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.