Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeffrey Beall


 * 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 speedy keep. No argument presented for deletion. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 21:46, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Jeffrey Beall

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Beall is only mentioned in journals with a conflict of interest because of his views against open access (normal journal's main competitors). He does not meet any of the other qualities necessary for Notability (academics) --Gihiw (talk) 20:25, 7 September 2016 (UTC) — Gihiw (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:29, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Beall is only mentioned in journals with a conflict of interest because of his views against open access (conventional journal's main competitors). He does not meet any of the other qualities necessary for Notability (academics) -- specifically:
 * 1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.

-- many citations are not in the peer reviewed literature and many are negative.


 * 2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.

no
 * 3. The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g., the IEEE).

no
 * 4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.

no
 * 5. The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon).

no
 * 6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society.

no -only assoc prof
 * 7. The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.

no
 * 8. The person is or has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area.

no - only a blog
 * 9. The person is in a field of literature (e.g., writer or poet) or the fine arts (e.g., musician, composer, artist), and meets the standards for notability in that art, such as WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSIC.

not relevant Gihiw (talk) 20:31, 7 September 2016 (UTC)


 * keep This is not a policy-based nomination and will result in a torrent of "keeps" and a WP:SNOW close, if some admin doesn't shut it down sooner. He is a librarian who has made a huge impact inside and outside of academia on how open access journals are considered as part of the body of scholarly work that librarians curate.  This is shown clearly by the sources in the article.  The nomination also misrepresents the sources in the article which range from NPR to Chronicle of Higher Education to tripleC (an open access journal) to yes, Nature.   User:Gihiw please review WP:DELETION which is policy (that you have violated pretty badly) and consider withdrawing this nomination Jytdog (talk) 20:35, 7 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. (ec) Beall is most noteworthy specifically as a commentator on open-access (OA) publishing (and a generally-respected critic of some OA publishing models, and of predatory publishers of OA journals). His noteworthiness in that particular role is well-established by multiple authorships and coverage in both the scientific and lay press. Incidentally, this AfD appears to be a retaliatory filing by Gihiw, in response to an observation at WP:COIN that his only contributions to Wikipedia were about a particular author who habitually publishes in predatory OA journals. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:45, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * oh, so the nomination is WP:POINTy. Jytdog (talk) 20:58, 7 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Snow keep. This is a bizarre nomination. Beall has published in both open access and subscription journals (not "normal" – a very large proportion of journals are open access these days). Regardless, there is no "conflict of interest" in scholarly journals publishing articles about scholarly publishing. Where else would that discussion happen? He is a very notable scholar, particularly in his work on predatory publishers (WP:PROF and #C7). Joe Roe (talk) 21:13, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Very notable. -- do ncr  am  21:25, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep Tons of snow here and a trout for the nom. Notability crystal clear. Someone please close this already. --Randykitty (talk) 21:41, 7 September 2016 (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.