Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management


 * 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. Cbrown1023 talk 14:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Previously speedily deleted as spam, and recreated. No assertion that this journal is notable, and the article is still rather spam-like. I'll co-nominate other journals produced by Emerald Group Publishing Limited Steve (Stephen)talk 05:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because they assert no notability, and are from the same publisher:

As a late entry I also found this one, not such much listing for deletion as for DGG's excellent analysis...:


 *  Weak redirect or keep Emerald publishing seems to be one of the journal databases to which my university subscribes, and the Google hits for each of these include several .edu domains and such. The articles would need to be rewritten regardless, or simply redirected to a main article for the company, as they are spammy. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * merge to Emerald Group Publishing. In a similar vein to WP:EPISODE - list the publications and expand as more individual notability / article worthiness can be setablished. And despammify. - Tiswas (t/c) 10:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * rewrite These have now been rewritten; thank you for the chance to do so. Since there are several other encyclopedia entries for Business and management journals it seems legitimate for each individual page to remain, provided the content is objective. Lawrencemj 11:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason to retain an article --Steve (Stephen)talk 21:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: These are all peer-reviewed academic journals from an apparently reputable academic publisher. My university library also subscribes to Emerald. It actually seems that an article on Emerald Group Publishing Limited has already been speedy deleted as advertising. The articles should probably be cleaned up and kept, and a new article on the publisher should be written. I have asked User:DGG, who is an academic librarian, to look at this. Pharamond 06:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You've made my week. In general its been possible to show that every published peer-reviewed journal is notable--, at least the ones in Web of Science and other indexes, but this may be a case where sections may be more appropriate. I will also write a completely new article on the company, and there will be no problem keeping it, as they have been specifically the topic of several published works.  Stephen, a good catch. DGG 07:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep for International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management . This journal has actually been rated by several independent raters, summarized in the peer-reviewed article cited (& not published by Emerald), and considered 1st, 2nd, or 6th among the 12 specialty transportation journals using various measures. Thus, I think by our rules it is inescapably notable, even though it is not in Social Science Citation Index, my usual criterion (The authors are  university faculty, though primarily not from the US. SSCI is very US-centric for applied journals; Scopus is more balanced.).
 * Articles about journals traditionally have some puffery--everything is a "leading international journal" or the like. When seen, such comments just need to be removed. Though as you will see there is some reason to be suspicious of the quality of Emerald journals, this one is OK. (to be continued) DGG 00:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep for Supply Chain Management: an International Journal. It is in SSCI and JCR, and ranks about midway in its group. Since JCR covers about the top quarter of peer-reviewed journals in the firs place, this is a respectable performance. The authors are mostly academics,not businessmen. DGG 00:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * merge for International Marketing Review. It is in Social Science Citation Index, probably because it has been published a relatively long time, but unfortunately its impact factor puts it in the bottom 15% of its group. This is only a rough way of assessing journals, and all the caveats are discussed at Journal Citation Reports and Impact Factor, but it is relevant for the comparison of similar journals in the same field. When I add the publisher article, I'll merge in the essentials.DGG 00:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * merge for Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, unless I can find out some more. It isn't in ISI and I have no other quantitative information. There are other ways of evaluating , but they're complicated-- You can look at how many libraries have the journal--which is not that useful as it once as because because Emerald like many major publishers sells most of its journals as packages--which also mess up subscription numbers. You look at a sample who publishes in it, and what their academic reputation is. You collect opinions of specialists. One look And so on. for now, I'd be very content to merge it in the general article. DGG 00:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * keep for the moment for Journal of Knowledge management. This is a new field; there are at most 10 journals in it, & this is one of just 2 of them to be included in Scopus. (None are in Web of Science.) I'd suggest keeping it on that basis. I think it's at least respectable, and the authors are academics. DGG 03:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep all - genuine refereed journals should be considered ipso facto notable. Metamagician3000 11:14, 22 April 2007 (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.