Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journal of Bengali Studies


 * 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. No compelling argument was advanced that the subject meets WP:GNG, there is no guideline or policy that would apply here providing specific guidance on the notability of academic journals. An essay, WP:NJOURNALS, exists, however, no argument was advanced that this journal meets it. The primary keep argument was an IAR argument for strongly leaning to inclusion for things we might use as sources within the encyclopedia, and I've (rarely) seen a similar argument get some weight in past AfDs, but I did not, here, find support for that argument strong enough to undermine consensus. --j⚛e deckertalk 16:11, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Journal of Bengali Studies

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

As per earlier PROD nomination by another editor: "Non-notable new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:54, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete as original PRODder. --Randykitty (talk) 10:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 19:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep -- If this really is a peer-reviewed academic journal, we ought to allow an article on it. The fact that has not yet been picked by the citation indices merely indicates that those indices are out of date.  inclusion depends on the compiler of the index taking out a subscription and the journal being successful in its marketing.  I suspect that Western journals are not that good at picking up journals on subjects in the humanities.  Peterkingiron (talk) 22:09, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * , I'm sorry, but I think you misunderstand several things here. I'll try to go through it in order. 1/ Not all peer-reviewed journals should have an article, for many reasons. Here are a few: A/ Some of the are so-called predatory journals, that obviously are not notable enough to be covered (unless they are so bad that they cause a scandal and get coverage because of that; see for instance OMICS Publishing Group and its hundreds of journals). B/ Other journals get started and disappear again after a short time. If this happens with a major publisher, the journal usually remains accessible anyway. If it was self-published, it may disappear without a trace, with perhaps only a few individual articles still available in institutional repositories or on authors" own websites, as long as those last. 2/ The citation indices are out of date. Nope, this journal is just too young. Citation indices rarely include new journals before they have shown A/ some staying power and B/ has been shown to make an impact as evidenced by articles in other journals citing it. Scopus, for example, is a database that might well cover a journal like this one. You can see their inclusion criteria here, and they are absolutely not related to whether a journal's marketing is successful. Scopus is one of the less selective databases, but from what I have seen of this journal, I strongly doubt that it will qualify for Scopus any time soon. Indexes don't take subscriptions at all. Journals are always keen on being included in them because it drives readership (which is why OMICS tried suggesting that some of its journals were MEDLINE indexed). Every publisher I've ever heard of will be more then happy to send them a free subscription in order to be selected. Authors don't like to publish in journals that are not indexed for the same reason: lack of visibility of their work. 3/ "Western journals are not that good at picking up journals on subjects in the humanities". Sorry, but that is incorrect, too. There are big indexes specialized in the humanities (such as the Arts and Humanities Citation Index, but there are also smaller, more specialized indexes).
 * If you look at WP:NJournals, you'll see that our inclusion criteria are actually more relaxed than those of the selective citation indexes. If a journal is included in even just one selective index, we say that it is notable, so our coverage should eventually be equal to the sum of all such indexes. I don't see, given point 1, why we should be even more relaxed. All predatory journals claim to be peer-reviewed. We don't have the means or the expertise, most of the time, to decide whether that is correct or not. Unless they have generated significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources, we should not include such journals. Even if we should decide that only journals on Beall's list are predatory (thereby basically giving him the right to decide what goes into WP or not) and write an article on any other journal as soon as it is established, in the end we still would be left with articles on journals that disappeared without much trace after a short period, leaving us with unverifiable stubs. The journal under scrutiny here is still very young. It is impossible to decide at this moment whether it will stay. There is no coverage in third-party sources. We have no means of deciding that it is high-quality or only publishes crap or something in between. Article creation is, in short, premature. I hope this clarifies the issues and apologize for the lengthy response... --Randykitty (talk) 10:25, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep This journal started in February 2012 which is not very recent. They have five published issues published at regular intervals which followed a biannual frequency. The links to the complete published issues are available in this article. This journal claims to be a pioneer in studying the history and culture of what they call the 'Indic Bengali' people (looks like they are studying the Indian Bengalis), and this journal does not charge any fees for publication as per their journal policies (available on their website), therefore they cannot possibly be a predatory journal (going by the definition of predatory journals). So far as that indexing in online directories is concerned, they often do not do any justice for humanities journal, that too published in a such a new area studies. The stuff within this article is called promotional, but it appears they have only given their aims and objectives a fair hearing. The deletion of their editorial team by Randykitty was surely a case of hostile editing, because that segment alone proves that this journal is run by some respectable academics from some premier academic institutions in India, and that it is peer-run and peer-reviewed, and that it is an accountable journal. This is also incorrect to say that thir party sources were not there in the article. This journal's editor has been interviewed by a third party site, the link of which is there in this article, which clearly proves that this journal is noted by some people other than who are working in it. SubhashboseINA (talk) 21:52, 29 June 2014 (Indian Standard Time) — SubhashboseINA (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment 2012 is pretty recent for a journal in my eyes, but if you want to argue that that is long enough, you should realize that that makes the failure to be included in any database even more egregious. I have given above in my long answer to Peterkingiron examples of databases that include humanities journals, the argument that there is a bias against humanities is simply wrong. As for the interview, I assume that you mean this. First of all, it's a blog and therefore not a reliable source in the WP sense. Second, it's not really independent, as all it gives is the opinion of the editor on his own publication. And third, in that long interview, the journal is only mentioned because the interviewee mentions it once himself. Really not significant coverage, no matter how you look at it. Nobody said this was a predatory journal, just re-read my comments to Peterkingiron more carefully. Ad for the editorial team, it does not matter how important these people are, because notability is not inherited. In any case, as long as there are no sources for a subject, we cannot have an article on it. For academic journals we often take a shortcut by accepting indexing in selective databases as significant coverage, but we don't have that here either. As for the hostile editing, please have a look at our journal article writing guide and then also read WP:AGF. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 17:34, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I am sorry, if this was not a predatory journal (as per its proclaimed policies on its website), then why did you even bring that topic in this debate, when we are discussing its possible deletion? Secondly, it is factually inaccurate to say that in that third party interview "in that long interview, the journal is only mentioned because the interviewee mentions it once himself". The very introductory line by that third party website mentions the name of this journal, and throughout that interview, the interviewer conducts his Q&A session on the basis of this journal alone. This kind of falsehood will bring this debate nowhere. True, that is not a "dotcom" site. But Skepoet is a noteworthy name in alternative humanities, and this segment of 'margnalia of radical thinking' where the journal editor's interview is published, earned some substantial critical acclaim among radical humanities groups. We cannot always have dotcom as the sole basis of accountability. Further, this journal is clearly assigned an ISSN by the Indian authorities in New Delhi keeping in line with the international policies, and so why exactly that should not be sufficient, and why do we need its index to be ratified by selective databases which we all know may not be favorable to this kind of new area studies? Lastly, people associated with premier Indian institutions do not bestow on this journal an inherited notability as it is being funnily suspected ("notability is not inherited"). Their association simply proves that this journal is accountable, and is peer-run and peer reviewed. Now can please and  stop making these aggressive removals to this journal's wiki page and let it remain in its original form till this debate is over and a final call about its deletion is taken? Being malformed repeatedly by those clamoring for its deletion is surely a case of biased editing. If you think its should be deleted, why are you even bothering to edit it, and why cannot you simply wait till it is deleted? Thank you. SubhashboseINA (talk) 23:15, 29 June 2014 (Indian Standard Time)
 * Very briefly: "predatory": Peter argued that all academic journals should be kept and I gave arguments why that is not feasible. PLease read his and mine comments. "ISSN": having an ISSN is absolutely and completely trivial. "Interview": I gave three reasons why that interview is not "significant coverage". "Aggressive removals": all content is available through the article history for the duration of this AfD. There is no reason to keep that spam "live". "The very introductory line": Yep, indeed: it gives the name of the editor, followed by "editor of etc". Really in-depth coverage, that. Finally, if you don't have any arguments that are based in Wikipedia policy, then stop wasting our time and stop making personal attacks. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 19:07, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per the policy and pillar of WP:IGNOREALLRULES. Articles on scholarly journals should be presumed notable; we owe it to our readers to allow them to investigate the sources we are citing to document other WP articles. Even if there is little more the age and location of this particular journal, that is a start. Stubs do have value. Carrite (talk) 17:09, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course stubs have value. However, please read my response to Peterkingiron above. Note to closing admin: I urge the closing admin to read the arguments presented here: Should we indeed do away with GNG and NJournals in the case of academic journals, whatever their merits? --Randykitty (talk) 17:14, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Carrite's vote is nothing but an "I like it" argument, and goes directly counter to the fundamental consensus position valid across all notability discussions, that notability is a matter of coverage in independent reliable sources. In the present case, the amount of documented coverage in independent sources is precisely zero. As such, Carrite's vote is blatantly contrary to community consensus and must be disregarded in closing this AfD. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:13, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - Academic journals can be presumed notable unless proved otherwise. Newness does not mean that isn't notable.  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:52, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You can't be serious. Yet another person who thinks they can get away with a blatant "I like it" vote, without any basis in project-wide consensus and policy. Nothing on Wikipedia can ever be notable without substantial independent coverage in reliable sources. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:00, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete I was unable to find any evidence of multiple in-depth reliable sources. I was also unable to find any evidence of indexing in any indices. While we must be sensitive to possible systemic biases against journals outside the publishing mainstream, except for an ISSN, there is just no secondary acknowledgement or coverage, period. It may be this is a case of  WP:TOOSOON. Without such coverage, the journal fails notability per WP:GNG and WP:NJournals. I could not find any appropriate merge targets, either, hence recommend deletion. --Mark viking (talk) 23:17, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - There is a serious case of WP:COI that needs to be taken into account with this article... the article was created by User:Tamalmou. It turns out that he is the founder of the Journal.  Thus, there is an element of self-promotion.  I will also draw your attention to the fact that the only other article to link to Journal of Bengali Studies article is the article on Bengali Studies (which was also created by User:Tamalmou)... in that article it is mentioned in order to support a somewhat shaky claim that Bengali Studies is considered a notable academic discipline (to quote from that article: "This field is considered to have been formally recognised within academia in recent times with the launch of the Journal of Bengali Studies in the year 2012 by Tamal Dasgupta who teaches at University of Delhi").  Again... self-promotion is at play. Blueboar (talk) 12:48, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * After my cleanup of the article (stub), the COI issue is not really important any more as far as the contents go. The motivation to create one article to support the other really smacks of the potential beginning of a walled garden, of course. --Randykitty (talk) 14:15, 5 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete I still see no evidence this meets our criteria. On a side issue, I note that the organisation that publishes the journal is going to create more and that its founder is the creator of the article. That might be all fine and dandy, except that they actually have an agenda. "We are trying to promote Bengali history on wikipedia by authoring articles." Great. "We are working on the Jayadeva birth controversy, in order to dispel doubts about the birthplace of Jayadeva, the poet of Gitgobindo." Terrible and takes us back to this AfD. The birthplace of Jayadeva is heavily disputed, see [Jayadeva birth controversy]]. But here we have an 'academic journal' run by people who are dedicated to dispel doubts - that is to argue that he was born in Bengali and I would guess to use their journals as sources to push this position. Please read all of as it appears this organisation hopes to have an impact on a number of our articles. Dougweller (talk) 14:12, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Having looked at all of the various links above, this appears actually to be a publication by a pressure group rather than a serious academic exercise. Shoptodina describes itself as a nationalist body and its BISOS offshoot is described as "a close-knit group" which also gives me cause for alarm. There certainly was COI and, yes, it did look like the start of a walled garden. We don't need this sort of thing and Mark viking's point about GNG/TOOSOON is entirely valid. Maybe one day ... although I doubt it. - Sitush (talk) 15:27, 5 July 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.