Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journal of Indigenous Studies


 * 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. Courcelles 00:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Journal of Indigenous Studies

 * – ( View AfD View log )

At first sight this article looks pretty solid. However, this does not stand up to closer scrutiny. Most of the article describes other journals, gives exhaustive descriptions of the contents of the six issues that were published, or describes the cover design and subscription fees. Note that very few of that kind of information would normally be present in an article describing a scholarly journal. There are an impressive 20 references. However, references 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 are to the journal itself. Reference 1 is a directory that just lists the journal and publisher. References 2 and 4 are indexes that do not give any real information at all, except that these libraries hold (some of) the journal. Reference 3 is to a page on the GDI, listing the year that the journal started publishing. Reference 5 is about a completely different journal. Reference 6 is a list of journals with similar topics, not even mentioning this journal. Reference 9 is only a passing listing containing Littlejohn (editor since 1991), without mentioning the journal. References 15 to 19 are instances where other publications cited an article from this journal. Reference 20 sources an award that the journal got: honorable mention as "best new journal". Note that this is only a mention, another journal won the ward and there are 2 other honorable mentions listed for 1992. A Google search for "Journal of Indigenous Studies" gives 227 hits, none of which appear to establish notability. Searching on Google Scholar gives 155 hits, not all of them articles in this journal. The most-cited article scores 24, the next one 12. Google books guives 171 results. Again, as far as I can see, none of them serve to establish notability. I cannot find any citations to this journal in the Web of Science (using "cited reference search, as appropriate for a non-indexed journal). WorldCat cannot find any academic libraries in the United States or Canada that hold this journal.

I originally prodded this article, but was chastised on my talk page for not having done my homework, hence this overly-long nomination. However, I think that the above shows that this journal does not meet WP:GNG or even the much more lenient criteria of WP:NJournals. Hence: delete. Crusio (talk) 14:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.  -- Crusio (talk) 14:44, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- Crusio (talk) 14:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions.  -- Crusio (talk) 14:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong keep This article nomination amounts to nothing more that WP:POINT. The nominator originally tagged a stub as not being notable. Rosie spent time indicating that although 700+ google book hits did not reflect the actual solid sources there were enough sources to justify an article. This article is well sourced and does have several sturdy sources and is more than acceptable. We have articles on one off comics etc, I don't see why a journal with 6 issues which is mentioned in multiple publication should not meet guidelines. It is as notable as Karla Jessen Williamson, an editor who wrote for the journal. I agree that google does not exactly reap a massive amount of sources, but we have thousands of topics on here in which the web coverage is very poor and actual information which exists in book or in local libraries amounts to many times more. I think the article is informative and notable being part of Aboriginal Multimedia Society of Alberta which I think should be covered on wikipedia and the sources whether weak or strong have been used to write an article which is satisfactory. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:49, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Not that it is germane to this discussion, but how could this be WP:POINT? I prodded the article, because I felt it was not notable. Above, I provide arguments why I think that the added references fail to establish notability, so I have not been swayed and as is customary in this kind of cases, I take it to AfD. On my talk page you accused me of frivolously prodding articles and not being able to admit my errors. Now you accuse me of being pointy. I'd appreciate it if you could assume good faith. Thanks --Crusio (talk) 14:58, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I just think your time would be better spent expanding the journal stubs or poorly written/sourced articles which have serious issues than trying to delete this that's all. We have far too many article topics with seirous issues to contend with on wikipedia than a Journal of Indigenous Studies. At least though you have tried to state your case, some people are happy to prod anything and try to delete anything without proper research... ♦ Dr. Blofeld  15:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Half of the issues were written in Cree language. It may be the only academic journal, or one of very few, that can make this claim. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:22, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep This is distinctive and notable  as a pioneering journal of its type. I acknowledge the criticisms by Crusio--we very rarely disagree on the standards for  topics of this sort.   I think this is a valid exception. There is a place for IAR, and this is the place--the academic journal informal guidelines we use did not take account of situations like this, so we must use our own judgment.    I am not going to repeat Dr Blofield's arguments, but I refer to them for a explanation of the importance.    DGG ( talk ) 00:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep&mdash;I acknowledge the point the nominator is making. However, the frequency with which papers in this journal are referenced by other, reasonably solid publications lends it some credence as a notable journal.&mdash;RJH (talk) 21:22, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I appreciate the comments made by the previous two editors and I hate to disagree with DGG... However, I have to note that I don't see how this journal is "pioneering" or how that makes it notable (remember "notable" does not equal "worthy") and that the number of citations to its articles is far below what one might expect from a notable academic journal. I think everybody here should realize that if we accept these arguments and standards, then each and every peer-reviewed academic journal will be notable, too, even if it only ever published a single issue and was cited only occasionally. I have no real problem with that (apart from the fact that every obscure new online journal will then clamor its own article), but I do think it would violate the letter and spirit of WP:GNG and that many other editors would object to this change in policy (one only needs to peruse the discussion on the talk page of WP:NJournals. --Crusio (talk) 21:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * When I consider deleting an article I evaluate the content and sources and think to myself "would wikipedia be better off for getting rid of this or keeping it". The answer in this case at least to me is obvious. We have hundreds of unsourced articles and stubs on journals on here. It just seems odd to be wanting to delete a developed article like this that's all which does provide information and is well written. Even you must admit that at least some of the sources are satisfactory. I honestly can't see why the existence of this article is harming or worsening wikipedia in anyway. As it stands it is far better written and comprehensive and resourceful than over 3/4 of existing wikipedia articles on journals and I think its the sort of indigenous studies article that some people studying the Cree people or whatever would find useful. It may not be the most notable publication in the history of mankind but it is far from being the least. The sources which exists for many Inuit settlements in northern Canada is often extremely sparse. That doesn't automatically make them non notable. There is often considerable overlap between what is worthy and what is notable. As it stands this journal is cited by multiple publications and certainly has encyclopedic worth which only adds to wikipedia as a comprehensive source. The internet coverage of Cree journals is not exactly going to have an abundance of Harvard style publications about it anyway. The same would be for notable Burmese publications, even Welsh language historical publications I know of but the current sources available on the internet are very poor. I know you'll argue that I'm wrong until you're blue in the face but our time would be better spent deleting/expand those journals which really do have more seirous issues. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep, easily meets WP:NJ #1 and #3, it is one of a handful of journals to focus mostly on the modern Canadian aspect of things, and one of the only academic journals, if not the only journal, to ever have been written in Cree. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:39, 21 December 2010 (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.