Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journal of Financial Therapy


 * 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 article's subject is found to not be notable. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 04:36, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Journal of Financial Therapy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article PRODded wiht reason: Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. De-PRODded by IP without specific reason stated. PROD reasons still stands, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 18:16, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 18:36, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 18:37, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioral science-related deletion discussions. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 18:38, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 18:38, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. A check of SCOPUS (which, being a paywalled resource, unfortunately I can't link to here) shows that a dozen articles from the journal are cited in journal articles indexed there, one of which was cited 6 times in the last 4 years, a performance that to me is sufficiently impressive for a five year old journal that publishes semi-annually. I recognize that the standards for academic journals are a bit strict—too strict, in my personal opinion, as an academic librarian who works with open access journals on a daily basis—but I think this one is clearly distinct from the pay-to-play vanity stuff that I'd agree would clog the encyclopedia if it was all allowed in.  Notability is hard to gauge and has always been controversial here, as evidenced in part by the fact that the Academic Journals link you posted remains an "essay" and not an official "guideline" despite being around here for years, and I think the inclusionists are right to argue that, in a case like this, we lean towards keeping. Jwrosenzweig (talk) 00:08, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The Scopus journal list is freely available here and this journal is not covered. A smattering of citations is to be expected for any journal, but this amount of citations would not even make a single researcher notable, let alone a whole journal. Scopus is getting less and less selective, and not even Scopus covers it, let alone more selective databases. Even predatory journals will get this much citations. Notability is not that difficult to gauge, we have WP:NJournals for that (a guideline that is very lenient on journals). This journal is relatively new, we still have to wait and see whether it will even survive, let alone whether it will become notable. Article creation simply is way too soon in this case. --Randykitty (talk) 10:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I do see your point -- it's possible my leanings (forged about a decade ago, and unlikely to change much, at this point) are more Inclusionist than is now fashionable at Wikipedia. To me, the article adds value, the journal is clearly getting use in its niche community, and its affiliation with a professional organization both suggests its long-term survival and reassures us that it is not predatory.  But I recognize that it's a borderline case, and appreciate your considering my opinion. Jwrosenzweig (talk) 16:49, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor Talk! 08:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete – The association itself is still new and appears to be a rather small community of researchers who are citing each other. Worthy project but still too soon. – Margin1522 (talk) 08:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete My search found no significant independent coverage of this publication, nor does the article list any independent sources. Papaursa (talk) 17:32, 1 March 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.