Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journal of Black Psychology


 * 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. Although there is one delete vote, the keep votes have provided, IMHO, sufficient evidence to refute the delete voter's reasoning. Taking that refutation and the quality of the arguements of the people supporting the article's inclusion in Wikipedia, I see the consensus as being a strong keep, with any other outcome having "a snowballs chance in hell" (per WP:SNOW). (non-admin closure) Foxy Loxy  Pounce! 02:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Journal of Black Psychology

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

An article on a magazine which is written as a directory entry and lacks independent sources (the sources are the journal and its sponsor organisation). Guy (Help!) 22:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, absolutely, and please withdraw this nomination or close it speedily. On my campus, it's full-text accessible via Sage. It's published by the Association of Black Psychologists, which is celebrating its 40th anniversary. It's indexed by PubMed. It's indexed by EBSCO. Should I really go on? Try this search in Google Scholar--even if not all the 3,800 hits are notable or appropriate, chances are we're dealing with a notable journal. If the article isn't good, editing it is the way. Drmies (talk) 22:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete whilst there is evidence of this journal being cited in some papers, this does not make the journal notable, unless there is evidence that this is considered an important journal in it's field i think it should go. Where it is published and inclusion in directories are not evidence of notability. --neon white talk 23:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't talking about inclusion in directories. Being included by EBSCO or something like that is not like getting your blog mentioned somewhere on some other blog. Where it is published--I assume you mean by whom it is published--is in fact important, at least in academia, which is where I work and where this journal operates. "This journal is being cited in some papers" hardly does justice to reality; 3,800 hits on Google News really should settle this already. Drmies (talk) 00:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Being included in Pubmed or EBSCO mean that people independent from the subject made an editorial judgement that their work was significant. It's not just a random made up journal, it's one by a notable organization of experts. - Mgm|(talk) 09:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. It's held by more than 500 libraries per Worldcat, cited by an opinion writer in WSJ here and there's much more. If this is seriously challenged I'll try to come back later and flesh this out further. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  23:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Being held by libraries is not a criteria for notability. A single line mention in a WSJ op piece is simple not enough to satisfy basic notability. If there is anything better it needs to be provide here. Refer to Notability_(media) --neon white talk 23:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not a dime store novel, it is a peer review journal and being held by university and research center libraries probably does establish notability. --Mr Accountable (talk) 00:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Journals there seems to refer to what you get in a newsagents not a Peer Reviewed Journal. Oh and that page is an essay. --Cameron Scott (talk) 00:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. Xymmax is obviously right. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Googling 'journal of black psychology' produces very many usable references, going far beyond the requirements of Notability_(media) cited by Neon white. This peer review journal is important. --Mr Accountable (talk) 00:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Independent sources have been added to External links, and 'written as a directory' is subjective (and inaccurate to my thinking); nomination lacks premise. --Mr Accountable (talk) 00:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep the impact factor is of the level I'd expected and 440 notable cites in 2007 indicated that it is considered notable in it's field. Needs better sources,not deleting. --Cameron Scott (talk) 00:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  00:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  00:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep peer-reviewed journals in major indexes are notable. Being used as a source for other significant journals is exactly one of the conditions in the essay on notability of media  referred to, and I think that this criterion it applies here as well. The article needs expansion, though: sort of material that is usually added to such pages is the names & affiliations of the successive editors in chief, a scan of the cover,  and the names of the major indexes, along with the impact factor mentioned above. I also consider it suitable to list 2 or 3 of the most important papers published there.  The nomination was essentially based on it being a stub,and we do not delete stubs.   DGG (talk) 01:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG's comments. - Mgm|(talk) 09:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Not sure which way to go with this, but I'd just like to say I thought notability wasn't inherited. Why should this be kept just because it is listed in database X?  I'm trying to look for adequate sources for this to meet the notability guidelines, but that is hard to do as there are so many citations of the journal in my searches that make finding independant discussion about the journal difficult, if it exists. Themfromspace (talk) 11:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * But with an academic journal, notability is not going to be established by other sources talking about the journal but by them citing the journal. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * But on Wikipedia, as opposed to the academic world, citing the topic of an article and discussing it in detail are two completetly different things. Themfromspace (talk) 14:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * But that's the point - it's act of citation that provides the notability - are considered by reliable sources to be authoritative in their subject area - yes evidenced by it's impact factor and other accepted measures of academic notability and importance. are frequently cited by other reliable sources - 244 cites in other noted peer reviewed journals in 2007. How is notable within the field not demonstrated? --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * just so. It's not a single quotation, or even two which establishes notability--the GNG is not meant to be used this way. We are I hope not going to include all journals which were cited twice only anywhere in the world. How many is enough? Enough for the journal to be included in the principal indexes. We accept their standards. DGG (talk) 17:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, totally. Drmies has slaughtered the argument for deletion.-- S Marshall   Talk / Cont  14:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's Snowing and notability has been clearly established Grandmartin11 (talk) 16:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep' as per Drmies. Edward321 (talk) 23:56, 22 January 2009 (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.