Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journal of European Psychology Students


 * 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. The only argument for keep was based on holding this to a lower notability standard because it's a student journal. Unfortunately, there's no support for that idea in current policy. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Journal of European Psychology Students

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 22:00, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep TKivisik: I strongly support the idea to keep Wikipedia organised and full of noteworthy information. Although deleting JEPS article seems to go too far. I went through the general guidelines (WP:GNG) and based on that there is ground for improvement but not enough for deletion.
 * JEPS article has independent sources as well as nonindependent (taken from the JEPS website). All of the things taken from JEPS website are referred to (so anyone can see what was from an independent source and what not). Further work can be done to provide more independent sources.
 * JEPS has significant coverage, is reliable and the sources of the article are varied (independent sources added…) and no original research is needed to extract the content.
 * It is not appropriate to measure JEPS with the same standard (WP:NJournals) as other highly professional academic journals as it’s a student journal. Thereby it should be enough that JEPS is known in its league (as a student journal) and has a high standard within it - contract with Ubiquity Press, reviewers must have PhD’s and are most probably professors etc.
 * independent sources where added (righttoresearch.org, Berufsverband Österreichischer PsychologInnen, British Psychology Society)
 * I respect the critique you have made and would be glad if you could help with some futher hints on how to improve the article. Tkivisik (talk) 13:38, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Your intentions are very laudable, however, in order to qualify for an article a subject (even a journal such as this one) needs to be notable in the WP sense. If there are independent sources that have discussed the journal in-depth (that is, not just cited one or a few articles from it or mentioned it in-passing), then those sources should be added to the journal to satisfy WP:GNG. In general, that is harder for an academic journal than meeting WP:NJournals, but you don't need to meet both, just one is enough. At this point, the article meets neither and your comment does not give any policy-based arguments to think otherwise. (see WP:AFD and especially WP:DISCUSSAFD for more info on this deletion procedure). --Randykitty (talk) 13:56, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, § FreeRangeFrog croak 02:08, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Comment: I agree with Randykitty about this not meeting WP:NJOURNALS, but due to the fact that this is a journal for undergrads and masters students I think in this case trying to meet the general notability guidelines would be easier than the journal guidelines. That said I would recommend creating an article for the European Federation of Psychology Students Associations first since it would probably be easier to show notability for them, and then merging this article about their journal into that article, and keeping it there until enough sources can be found to establish its own notability at which time it could have its own stand-alone article. I like the work that Tkivisik has put into this article, and I personally wouldn't mind keeping this article, but I do not think any amount of work is likely at this time to be able to get this article to meet WP:GNG.AioftheStorm (talk) 18:50, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 20.  — cyberbot I  Notify Online 04:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔   01:57, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge I agree with the nomination that this does not meet WP:NJOURNALS, or any other notability guidelines, but the solution here really should be to create European Federation of Psychology Students Associations, which does meet WP:N, and merge this article over there. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:24, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Reference 1 is a blog. Reference 2 is a list of journals from the publisher. It is not a third-party source, and it only provides a passing mention. I am not able to view reference 3, although I found this page, which indicates that the source is "A Call for Papers". References 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 & 11 are by the journal editors themselves. Reference 10 gives a passing mention to the journal.


 * Reference 3 might be a suitable reliable source that helps to establish notability. However even if it is, this would not be sufficient to satisfy the GNG.


 * I have previously argued with Randykitty about WP:NJournals. That page is an essay. It does not have widespread community consensus.


 * As an aside, I do not know what a "double-blind" journal is. (The journal editors do indeed make that claim.) Axl  ¤  [Talk]  11:55, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I think they mean "double-blind reviewed". --Randykitty (talk) 12:14, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete -this fails WP:GNG and is completely non-notable.--Canyouhearmenow 23:56, 5 August 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.