Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journal of Interactive Advertising


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Journal of Interactive Advertising

 * – ( 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) 09:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 09:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - a journal's notability is based primarily on its impact. While it is true that this one is not indexed by Scopus or Web of Science, that shouldn't be decisive.  Journal of Interactive Advertising has published many highly cited articles and several that have attracted popular media attention.  It is also widely held by academic libraries.  In principle, the article could be merged into a publisher article (currently Routledge), but I think it better to have a stand alone article.  Due to its multiple affiliations over the years, multiple potential merge locations exist, but none is a super obvious destination.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 19:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep mostly per ThaddeusB. If an academic journal is widely cited, and is held by numerous academic libraries, it stands to reason the journal is a reliable, verifiable source that could (and should) be used to establish the notability of other topics.  As such, the topic is inherently encyclopedic, GNG or no GNG. Regarding WP:NJournals, I believe the journal meets criteria 1, via example 6.  Likewise is also meets criteria 2 via example 8.    78.26   (spin me / revolutions) 15:14, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep I accepted this at AFC, after checking that it was put out by a prominent publisher Taylor & Francis. Various independent references outside of this point back to the journal include https://books.google.com.au/books?id=BcAdAAAAQBAJ&pg=RA3-PA2004&lpg=RA3-PA2004, https://books.google.com.au/books?id=4gJNBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA218&lpg=PA219. Also and heaps of other reliable sources reference this journal. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment concerning the three keep !votes above: That a journal is published by a notable publisher does not make it automatically notable nor does it guarantee future success (I list -non-exhaustively- a few examples on my user page of journals started by such publishers and failing after a few years, never making any significant impact). Neither does it make a journal notable if a handful of other publications cite some individual articles. If the number of citations are notable, a selective database will pick up the journal sooner than later, but at this point, there is no indication that this is or will be the case. None of the sources that you present are anything more than in-passing mentions, none discuss the journal itself. I maintain that this journal does not meet any notability guideline that we have. --Randykitty (talk) 10:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, NJOURNAL says a journal is notable if it "frequently cited by other reliable sources." Being included in a selective database is used as an example of how to tell this is the case, but is by no means the only way to do so. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The operational word here being "frequently". In order to find a single academic notable, we usually require over 1000 citations. A journal should have much more than a single academic... --Randykitty (talk) 22:49, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I have never heard the 1k citations=notable idea for an academic, but none-the-less I added the first couple pages of citation counts from the GScholar link and was already at 5k cites to Journal of Interactive Advertising with no signs of the numbers dropping off. I would suggest it has been cited at least 20k times by other RS, which I would deem sufficient for notability.   Searching just for the phrase "interactive advertising", I only see two articles total (both in Journal of Advertising) cited more than often than the top papers published by Journal of Interactive Advertising.  Sure it's a highly specialized journal, but given it's narrow scope the citation counts are pretty impressive IMO. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:25, 26 January 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.