Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journal of Literary and Cultural Disability 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:30, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Journal of Literary and Cultural Disability Studies

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." DePRODded with reason "in Project Muse. Such journals are almost always notable." However, MUSE appears to be used as standard publication platform for journals published by Liverpool University Press (their own journals page is empty). No evidence of meeting any notability guideline, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 06:41, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    07:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:03, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:03, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:20, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep One of the few times where I disagree with Randykitty on this class of subjects. MUSE is a selective list of electronically available journals, and journals they include in their system are important enough to be justify notability.,. If Liverpool Press uses it, I would would accept the implication that all their journals are notable. In fact, I consider all journals from a major univesity publish notable in any event.  DGG ( talk ) 02:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Agree with detailed thoughtful analysis as given by, above. Thank you, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 06:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree with DGG's argument. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Any journal published by Liverpool University Press will be published by MUSE. Hence, DGG's argument implies that any journal published by LUP will be automatically notable. We do not generally make this assumption even for journals published by larger publishers (Elsevier, Springer, etc), so I am a bit confused why we would make this assumption here. Elsevier publishes all of its journals on its ScienceDirect platform and most journals on that platform are clearly notable. But are we now assuming that any journal published on ScienceDirect will be notable? On my user page I have a short list of journals launched by large publishers that failed after a few years without ever generating much interest. If even Elsevier/Springer et al produce the occasional dud, why would LUP be any better? --Randykitty (talk) 13:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I am indeed arguing to extend this to all major university publishers & possibly select commercial publishers . The reasoning is that as since the great majority of such journals will be notable, and the distinctions, especially outside the sciences, are often hard to determine, it would be better to include them all. That way, we can have informative for the reader, which is our purpose. I'm not really concerned about promotionalism here, because the information we include is pretty standard. (The potentially promotional part is always copyvio also, & in any case easily removed). WP is an encycopedia , & the purpose of an encycopedia is to give information, not judge importance. I would guess that 90% of publications from US/ UK university presses are notable, and is it worth keeping out he other 10% ? What purpose does that serve? (I do not automatically extend this to commercial publishers at this point)  DGG ( talk ) 21:28, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * My problem is that this seems to be a very subjective criterion. Which publishers to include in the "always notable list"? Why only university presses and not the big commercial publishers (Sage, Elsevier, etc)? How do we justify not including OMICS journals? I think we should stick to NJournals, which provides clear criteria, and not opening this can of worms. --Randykitty (talk) 21:36, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - per DGG's very sensitive and well-worded arguments, and also because as a person who is considered to have a disability, I feel that this journal is noteworthy. Have gone back and forth on this, trying to word it as rationally as possible, and to avoid letting my personal feelings come to the fore, but I do feel that this AFD unintentionally implies that Randykitty considers disability culture and literature non-notable, even though I do not believe they do think that. Mabalu (talk) 22:40, 21 October 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.