Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journal of Conscientiology


 * 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. Having been relisted, I think the discussion has yielded a clear consensus for deletion. I see no particular reason to invoke IAR in spite of notability guidelines, which are not met, as per widespread agreement here. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 02:56, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Journal of Conscientiology

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article was PRODded with reason: "Non-notable journal. No independent sources, not indexed in any selective database. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals." It was de-PRODded by the article creator who added text indicating that the journal is indexed by selective major databases like Science Citation Index and Scopus. However, searching for the journal in Thomson Reuter's Master Journal list draws a blank. Neither is the journal listed in the Scopus title list. De-PROD edit summary claimed that the journal meets criterion 1 of WP:NJournals: "The journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area." As evidence for this is given the fact that 18 university libraries carry the journal. Thus is a rather paltry number, of course. A Google Scholar search gives citation rates in the single digits. In short, indexing in selective major databases fails verification and the journal is barely cited: a clear miss of criterion 1 and 2. I don't see any evidence that it meets criterion 3 or WP:GNG, so the PROD reason still stands. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 23:14, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, Randykitty tells the truth. For me this a matter of interpretation of criterion 1 and 2 and presumed notability. You find my justifications hier and hier. Although there are no explicit entry on "Thomson Reuter" and "Scopus" there must be somehow a indexation there, otherwise this information wouldn't be avaible on this link. Chees! - AlchemistOfJoy (talk) 03:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Can't say I've ever heard of the "International Science Index" or the "World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology", so I don't know where they get their information, but if Scopus and TR themselves don't list the journal, it's not indexed by them. --Randykitty (talk) 09:47, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * PS: I think you misinterpret the "International Science Index" link: when I click the search button, it actually says "not found". The indexing info is apparently not for the Journal of Conscientology, but for another journal. --Randykitty (talk) 09:56, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Me either. I took the link from Notability (academic journals). -- AlchemistOfJoy (talk) 11:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I may have misinterpret something, as a matter of fact. The indexations I mentioned are in fact from the World Academy of Science itself. At least you are keen-eyed. Thx. -- AlchemistOfJoy (talk) 11:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom's research. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 00:44, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete: doesn't even come close to meeting WP:NJournals. The only notability claims are that it's "indexed in the Zeitschriftendatenbank" (which, according to its German Wikipedia article, seems to index any and all periodicals) and kept in a few libraries. Kolbasz (talk) 00:52, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Webcat and Zeitschriftendatenbank are listed on point 6 of "Notability (notes & examples)", as examples on how to evaluate criterion 1. All of the libraries listed on these databases are ACADEMIC institutions. This should be a good criterion, 'cos all the other indexes are only for natural science. -- AlchemistOfJoy (talk) 12:35, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, they are, but what that note says is not that it is sufficient to be included in those databases, but that those databases can help in finding out which libraries hold the journal. For this journal, those holding numbers are very low and way below what we usually take as indicating notability here. --Randykitty (talk) 13:36, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep I've added further information. The article should be above the border line now. AlchemistOfJoy (talk) 02:42, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 04:20, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Commment I'm sorry, but EBSCO is not really a selective database and none of the other sources that you added comes even close to satisfying WP:GNG, WP:NJounals, or even WP:FRINGE. --Randykitty (talk) 06:30, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Commment Yes. But apart from EBSCO, if it covers exclusively two major events on the discipline one can presume notability, isn't it? -- AlchemistOfJoy (talk) 18:12, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No, not really. As you say, they covered these events. Apart from the question of whether these events in themselves are notable, that only makes the journal notable if somebody else took note of that coverage. --Randykitty (talk) 20:32, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Commment Well, let's be honest. If ya think a journal about a unusual subject, with over 15 years existance and distributed in 34 differnt countries is not notable enough, then we better eliminate it. 'Cos The bar is much too high, I must say. My mistake was to take another entries about journals with minimum information as reference. Since I don't wanna criticize another articles, but play by Wiki's rules instead, it is a bit of pointless to defend the article any further. AlchemistOfJoy (talk) 09:48, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, none of that makes a journal notable. What makes it notable is if others take note of it and that fact can be verified by reliable sources. Please feel free to criticize other articles. Some of those "minimal" articles may indeed be about non-notable journals, others may be about journals that are included in selective major databases, which would make them notable, even if that doesn't make an article necessarily much more substantial. --Randykitty (talk) 17:09, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi there Randykitty. Thanks again, for your feedback. My idea was to make a article that meet Wiki's standards and not to go like "if journal X deserves to be here than JofC deserves it too". But if you wanna compare: if Journal of Conscientiology gets eliminated any of the list "See also" should be eliminated too. I also added this third-party reference, as a main reference. News papers and magazines sure are reliable sources (at least for saying people are aware of it). And I'm sure someone here can read Portuguese to verify it. So what do you mean by "others" take note?
 * I had also another idea: to merge JofC into the main article Conscienciology. Just realised Wiki-EN doesn't have such article and I don't have time to write it now. So if you have to delete it, cary on. -Cheers! --AlchemistOfJoy (talk) 20:37, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep For me this is an IAR situation. The article is adequately supported by sources, and is likely to be useful to readers, so I don't see any benefit to eliminating it. Looie496 (talk) 17:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I hope that you noticed that the sources are either to the journal itself (or to the site of the IAC which publishes it) or just in-passing mentions (at best). The only independent "references" are a mention on Open Library, a mention on a booksellers site, the listing in EBSCO (which is not very selective at all), and a conference announcement where one of the 4 organizers is the journal's EIC (which is the only mention of the journal on that page). --Randykitty (talk) 17:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete, per WP:TOOSOON and WP:NJOURNALS. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * delete The first substantial discussion of the journal itself in my GSearch had this to say: "And the academy’s members have their own publication, called The Journal of Conscientiology, in which they publish their research. I’ll wager every chakra in my body that the IAC needs its own journal because the research carried out by its members would never be accepted for publication in a legitimate scientific journal." Obviously it's "just" a blog post, but the claim of "peer review" is surely utterly false. A look at GScholar shows a decided lack of citation of pretty much anything they publish. There is no JSTOR footprint whatsoever. The message I get is that this isn't even important enough for the usual skeptic groups and authors to condemn. Mangoe (talk) 22:01, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, my friend, how can you paste a blog content here and still say "Obviously it's "just" a blog post"? You're saying, we should ignore your post? The journal doesn't belong to IAC. They are only the publishers. Do you know what peer review means? As it says on the article there are 274 authors published, affiliated to 32 different academic institutions. And they are not from Conscientiology itself. There are parapsychologists, physicians, etc. Too bad for this blog. -- AlchemistOfJoy (talk) 13:06, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, 'peer reviewed' can mean almost anything - or almost nothing. It is certainly no guarantee of any particular standards. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:34, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: Bottom line: Even if parapsychology and OBEs isn't "true" it shouldn't be that much problem to publish on Wikipedia that people do research on this. As Looie496 wrote, I'm begining to think this is a IAR case. -- AlchemistOfJoy (talk) 13:06, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Why should we 'IAR'? What makes this journal which doesn't meet our notability guidelines different from any other journal that doesn't meet our notability guidelines? We have rules and guidelines for a reason, and if you are going to suggest they need to be ignored in this case, you should explain what makes this case different. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:31, 5 December 2013 (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.