Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journal of Emerging Investigators


 * 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 no consensus. North America1000 01:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Journal of Emerging Investigators

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable journal publishing just a handful of articles each year. Not indexed in any selective databases. There are a few independent sources, but they all mention the journal just in passing: they are about one particular student article, not the journal. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 14:11, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Arr4 (talk) 18:36, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:14, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:16, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Delete as per nominator. It fails to meet the standards set forth for notability of journals. Perhaps the author of the notable student piece should have an article, but not the journal itself.-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 20:45, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep while it is true that this does not pass WP:NJournals, that failure is trumped by the fact that it does pass WP:GNG The articles, from Wired, Miami Herald, and Nature cover this journal as a unique effort in teaching science, and are backed by the Kelsey/Lincoln article "Next-generation training: publishing student scientists’ research"  These 4 articles, references 2 thru 5 form the core of my argument for GNG status.  They are thorough, in depth discussions this journal  and the educational work that it does. the rest of the sources - addressing a particular paper that caught the fancy of the press - serve to illustrate the journal's utility, and to corroborate its notability.  It's a nice article.  And it's nice to see a new editor create a good article on a  notable topic.E.M.Gregory (talk) 03:04, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. That's weird! When I click the links to the sources you mention, I see different articles than you do! The Wired article is 50% copied from the journal's own website and the byline reads "'Chuck is a proud geek and a dad. By day he works in Information Technology in Higher Ed. By night he is a producer and musician playing bass in the Milwaukee band, "The Vitrolum Republic."' Seems more like a blog post than editorially-verified content. The Miami Herald article that I see only mentions the journal in passing (certainly not in a "thorough, in depth" way) and is about two school kids. The Nature "reference" is indeed extensive, but it is a post on their "guest blog" and not published by Nature itself. The author is the founder of this journal, so it is not precisely independent either. In short, as far as I can see, this is a clear failure of GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 08:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Wired has a bit of style, it includes a serious journalist calling himself GeekDad, & packing a lot of accurate info into a small space. The Herald, a major daily, showcases this tool for teaching science with real reporting. Nature allocates space to the creators to showcase themselves. That's a lot of serious coverage in major places for a small science-teaching project in the form of a journal. It is the very stuff of notability. And some of the rest of the coverage is the articles about that print font project are more than a passing mention.  The Huff Post essay describes the process in which journal editors worked with the student to improve the project's design after the initial article submission. (WP:NJournals exists because we know that many of the most  important journals can pass only under such a SNG, the Miami Herald and Forbes Magazine don't write features about them, so we judge their notability in other ways.     WP:NJournals is a Subject-specific Notability Guideliness.  While editors are encouraged to look toward Subject-specific Notability Guideliness when the primary notability guideline is failed, when WP:GNG is NOT failed, we need not look to various SNGs to decide that the primary notability guideline can be ignored and decide, contrary to the instruction of the primary notability guideline, that established notability does not exist. The SNGs do not overrule the GNG. What was brought to AFD here is a decent article that is well-sourced, passes GNG, is informative to readers, and which serves the project.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:50, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm the author of the article, and so while I'm obviously biased, I wanted to make a comment to correct some misconceptions. I'm new to WP and this is my first article, so I'm not as familiar with the standards other than those I've read from WP:NJournals and WP:GNG.  I'll leave the continued discussion up for the other editors on here, as they would know better than me.  To be clear, I have done some work with the journal (I won't deny a close connection to the subject), and I think that it is notable for what it does, as well as the press that it has received.  The website (or Google Scholar) clearly illustrates that the journal publishes more than 'just a handful' of articles a year (25 articles in the first 3 months of 2015).  To my knowledge, none of the articles -- with the exception of the Trends in Pharmocological Science and Nature article, which look like invited submissions and typical for science journals-- were written by anyone associated with the organization.  If you read any of the articles about the featured kids (take for example the CNN article), the journal is mentioned more than just in passing, and there is a quote from the journal's founder about how they encouraged the kid to find out how much the government could save on ink.  In my mind, this is an example of a good educational organization / journal at work.  I didn't include the articles that just mentioned the journal in passing, but how many public news articles are written about a journal itself?  The public doesn't see the CNN article about Nature magazine, but they do see the article about that cool new study coming out of Nature magazine.  I think you'd be hard-pressed to find any scientific journal aimed at kids which is listed in Scopus, but to my knowledge, the Journal of Emerging Investigators is the only journal that is both free and takes students through a review and editorial process similar to professional journals.  All the articles are on Google Scholar.  To me, this knowledge and references 2-5 fulfill the WP:GNG standards.  The remaining references about a notable author provide further support. Mspringel (talk) 10:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand your passion for your journal. However, a mistake new editors often make is to think that "notable" means "worthy". That is wrong. Something bad can be notable and something very good can be not notable. The two concepts are independent. New editors, like yourself, often think that because something is worthy and worth while pursuing, it should be covered in WP. But unfortunately that is not what WP is about. --Randykitty (talk) 11:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Randykitty, WP:NEWBIES. Perhaps see if there are ways to bring the article up to your standards, or wait and see how other editors view it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:58, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I am familiar with NEWBIES. It does not include leaving articles that are inadequately sourced just because they are created by a new editor. Creating new articles is one of the most difficult things here. As for waiting to see what other editors think: an AFD runs for a week and this one is listed on four different lists (see the fine print above). These lists are generally watched by interested editors who then can comment if they see fit. In addition, the AFD is listed on the "article alerts" page of the academic journals project, so there is ample opportunity for other editors to chime in. --Randykitty (talk) 15:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * In re: NEWBIES; perhaps you could have worked with the creator for a few days, explored whether sources not have easily located existed, and retained the good will of a new editor, whether or not efforts efforts to keep this page panned out. After all, this is not the classic new article AFD in which a new editor writes a memorial page, or puts a page up for his garage band.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't see any sources and none have been found yet either. In addition, the article creator is a staff member of the journal. It may not be a "classical memorial page", it is a classical "my thing should be on WP" page. Taken together, I don't see much opportunity for "working with the creator". Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 18:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Look, just judge the article on its merits and the organization's notability, rather than my relationship to it. I understand if you don't think it's notable, and I respect your opinion.  If the editors here agree that it's not notable, then please delete the article.  If the editors decide that it can be improved and kept, then I'd be happy to help.  I don't want to be a factor in the decision. I'll sticking around WP anyway, and the result of this discussion won't affect my decision to stay and help.  The JEI article was just a contribution I thought I'd make because I knew a lot about the subject.   Mspringel (talk) 19:29, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe that's what's happened. Several users have found this article to not meet WP:Notability. I, for one, believe it fails to meet that standard, regardless of your relationship to it. Therefore, it deserves deletion.-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 16:01, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Note that Nom has started an AFD on Journal of Young Investigators.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Your point being? I have started AfDs about dozens (perhaps even more, I don't keep count) of academic journals over the years. FYI, I also just PRODded The Journal of Network Theory in Finance and that one, too, will be taken to AfD if the PROD is removed without the addition of good sources showing notability. See also this one and this one, also created by an involved newbie. And that's just today. --Randykitty (talk) 21:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Per Randykitty and above. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) may the force be with you 00:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Sorry, but this is a case of 15 minutes of fame, so GNG is not really applicable. Almost all the journals discussed on WP are here by virtue of being "important" in the sense of being indexed by the major services (per WP:NJOURNALS c1), i.e. they're well-established, archival, and report research that itself is widely cited. Doesn't seem to apply here. Agricola44 (talk) 15:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC).
 * Keep. As I said in the JYI AfD - the fact that this is not indexed in selective databases or doesn't meet notability for journals is completely irrelevant; that's not what this project is for. Yes, most of its mainstream coverage comes from that one paper that went viral, but there is non-trivial interest in this in science-education venues, most prominently the Kelsey paper. Nature blog posts are curated (a guest post invitation is explicitly an editorial decision and a recognition of notability with respect to the Nature audience) and Wired's goofy bylines are a distraction. Lawyering over this stuff is a waste; isn't there actual spam to go delete? Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:14, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. Spam does not go to AfD, we delete it speedily as WP:CSD. Once an article is at AfD, the question is not whether WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS that needs our attention, but whether the subject in question is notable. If you think that NJournals is irrelevant here, that's fine with me, but then it needs to meet GNG and I can't say that you make a convincing case that it does. --Randykitty (talk) 07:05, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Come on now, we only delete some of the spam speedily. If you think we are efficient at removing promotional material quickly, I think there might be some bridges for sale over here ;)


 * Comment I suggested in the JYI AfD that these (and others of the genre) could be merged and redirected to a new article at undergraduate research journal or similar title. This is clearly a notable general topic that should have an article. JEI is slightly out of scope as it targets younger students, but clearly comes from the same early-STEM-education context, so I think that is a reasonable redirect target. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * As I said at the other AfD, a new article on a more general topic, to which these two articles could redirect, seems like a good solution to me. As for the preceding comment, perhaps the new article should be student research journal, I don't see a need to split this out in different articles depending on what stage of their education the students are in. --Randykitty (talk) 09:53, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Weak keep. I think the Wired and Nature coverage may be enough for WP:GNG (although I'm less impressed by the media spikes for individual flash-in-the-pan pieces of research published in this journal) and there's also a case to be made for NJournals #3. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:58, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * weak keep with the same reason as David E.  A combined article wouldas O..r. suggests would be a good idea, but that shouldn't affect our consideration of this one individually.  DGG ( talk ) 05:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &#8213; Padenton &#124;&#9993;  21:28, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - Largely in line with above. Wired, Nature, the local papers, etc. look to be enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Wired is better than Wired blogs and Nature is better than Nature blogs, but they're still good sources for notability purposes. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 23:16, 3 May 2015 (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.