Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journal of Public Affairs Education (journal)


 * 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.  Sandstein  09:11, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Journal of Public Affairs Education (journal)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article PRODed with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODed by article creator with reason "The journal is a leader within the discipline. Additional references have been added from sources outside of the journal." However, there's no evidence that this is a "leader within the discipline" (and it is highly unlikely that such a "leader" would not be in any selective index). References added (beside a WP article) are in-passing mentions in two books, which is certainly not enough to pass GNG. PROD reason therefore still stands. Hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 21:28, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 00:23, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 00:23, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 00:23, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 00:23, 13 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Save: I certainly understand that you don't like that the additional references are from books. However, I did go by your own guidelines. Under the "thoughts on NJournals, you said that there needed to be "multiple (at least two) reliable sources" providing information on the pieces. I did that. If there are other guidelines that you go by that you don't publish, tell me what those are. You never mention being included in an index in your guidelines, either. Otherwise, I met your requirements. That aside, Norma Riccucci is one of the biggest names in the field of public administration, which is why I included her. So is James Perry, which is why the reference from him is there. As someone from outside the field, references from them are like gold in the discipline. That said, there are other reasons to keep the journal. JPAE is the journal of the Network of Schools of Public Policy, Affairs, and Administration. They are the accrediting body of public administration and public affairs programs in the world. The journal is the academic connection that brings everything together. If notoriety doesn't come with that alone, I don't know what does. I would also challenge the notion that being indexed brings any kind of notoriety. All being indexed means is that you applied and got all of the boxes checked off to meet membership. The application process is usually several years long, but it doesn't mean you're a good journal versus bad journal. After all, there are journals that have been included in SSCI that are considered predatory journals. Based on your requirements, however, they would be eligible for inclusion. Coming from someone in the discipline, having the page is extremely useful. I vote keep. Travlinamos 01:23, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm sorry, but your argument basically boils down to WP:ILIKEIT. Notoriety is not the same thing as notability in the WP sense, which has nothing to do with merit or lack thereof. And notability is not inherited. Some citations are to be expected, but to make a journal notable (in the WP sense) you'll need quite a lot more than that. And concerning the databases, you're completely wrong. Yes, this may be true for, say, EBSCO databases, but to get into Scopus or Clarivate Analytics you have to pass an in-depth analysis by a committee of experts. --Randykitty (talk) 07:14, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. Yes, I like the journal, but it is also a journal that is massively important to its field. In regards to indexes and whether they pass in-depth analysis. I am correct. An article in the Journal of Librarianship and Information Science found evidence that predatory journals were listed in SSCI, ESCI, and SCOPUS. They also made it into ERIC and MEDLINE for what its worth. Notoriety and notability has very little to do with being indexed. If nothing else, JPAE has publicly said that they have applied for the indexes, but as I stated earlier, they take years to make decisions. Given that being included in the indexes is a bad measure for anything, what do you need to see added to the listing for you to be ok with it? I already met the standards you listed on your page of at least two references, so clearly you give a moving target. What is your target right now? Travlinamos 18:23, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment There's no moving target. You either show that this meets WP:NJournals or WP:GNG, either one is sufficient. It's fine with me if you want to shove WP:NJournals aside. In that case, please show how this meets WP:GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 17:18, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I would argue that it does meet WP:NJournals. Of the three criterion, 2 and 3 have nothing to do with indexes and I would argue that JPAE meets both of those. 2.b, for instance, asks about citations for a journal and 2.c talks about inclusion of the journal in academic libraries. JPAE is included in the library of every university in the US that has a Master of Public Administration program and a search on worldcat will show that it's included is a lot more than that, including a global audience. Also, a search on Google Scholar will quickly show that the journal has a hefty number of citations. Beyond that, 3 focuses on the historical importance of the journal in its subject area. For people in the field, this is certainly met. Those issues aside, what would it take for you to be happy that it meets WP:GNG. It's a journal and finding other journals to write about how amazing a different journal is will not happen. So what kind of evidence would you need? Travlinamos 20:00, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. Here at WP, we work with sources. I'm perfectly willing to believe you that this has "historical significance", but that is not enough. You'll need independent sources that tell us that this has historical significance. As for the citations, those are really very modest. A single researcher would not qualify WP:PROF with them, let alone a complete journal. So, no, this does not meet NJournals in any way, so I guess you're stuck with GNG.
 * Comment I am confused because what you are telling me isn't consistent with the WP:NJournals page. According to the page, historical significance is enough if it is historically important to the subject area. That said, the page lists other criterion in which notability can be obtained, which JPAE meets. As my last comment mentioned, it also fits with the other criterion under notability. I reference back to your moving target as on your own page you said it just needed two sources. I've met the two sources, I've met the criterion established on WP:NJournals for the article, so what's the issue? I'm accepting that you are going to be against the entry no matter what, as evidenced by the moving target. I'm asking what is the level of independent sources that you need to see referenced on the page. If its two, as your own page says, fine. If it's 3, ok. I can get more; however, I suspect that no matter how many I put up you will come back with a different number. You're already challenging the qualifications of the authors of the references I am using, despite that they literally are the leaders in the field. So, what is it that you want to see and I will get it posted there. Travlinamos 00:45, 14 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment Just a random note. I have a couple of friends that are librarians at different universities. I reached out to them and asked what index from a library of science standpoint would matter. They said EBSCOHost and JSTOR. They are competitive to get in, they are confirmed to include no predatory journals and they actually includes the ability of people to see the articles and not just the meta data. For what it's worth, JPAE is listed in both and as a core journal in the field of public administration in the EBSCOHost listing. . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Travlinamos (talk • contribs) 23:01, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment It's not enough in a debate like this to say "it's historic", you need proof of that. And neither JSTOR nor EBSCOHost are considered selective enough to meet NJournals in these deletion debates. Anyway, it's pretty obvious that we don't agree. I propose that we now let other editors give their opinions, as this is becoming rather repetitive. --Randykitty (talk) 05:27, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment That's fair to let others give their opinions. All I had been asking is what it would take to convince you, but I was never able to get that out of you. Perhaps another editor will be able to answer the question so that I can add in the appropriate sources. Travlinamos 17:50, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Sigh. NJournals requires indexing in selective databases, which is not the case here, the journal is not even in Scopus, which is about the least selective database that we accept for showing notability. Being "historic": it's not enough to assert "this is historic". You need sources that substantiate such a claim. "Citations": GScholar lists a smathering of citations, far from what is needed to make a journal notable. Putting NJournals aside, to satisfy GNG you need multiple sources independent of the subject that discuss the subject in depth. A handful of citations in books does not satisfy this. So what is needed is indexation in a selective databse or significant sources. If those don't exist, the subject is not notable (in the WP sense of "having been noted"). If the journal is as central to its community as you say, it should be easy to find sources that confirm that. If those sources are absent, then apparently the journal is less stellar than you seem to think. I hop this clarifies the question about what is needed to make this notable. --Randykitty (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh I feel the sighs, I'm experiencing the same thing. As I noted in one of my comments, if you could tell me what it is you are looking for, I will get the references added. You are now saying multiple, independent and in-depth. I can get you multiples upon multiples of independent sources. If you want in-depth, absolutely every journal is going to be screwed. No journal editor would accept an article praising a different journal. So you've set up a barrier that absolutely no journal can ever pass. The publishing industry doesn't work that way. HOWEVER, given the there is a standard for WP:GNG, what does that look like for journals? I can give you citations for articles praising Frederickson (the guy that started the journal) which note his role in starting the journal as one of his key achievements, and he literally is the biggest name in the field. I can look at the list of journals in the field that are on Wikipedia and a number of them are pretty crappy journals (have you seen the entry for Voluntas?). I don't know what it is about JPAE that you have a problem, but whatever standard you're applying isn't clear and isn't consistent and isn't realistic. After all, I'm not sure you understand the requirements of NJournals. Take a look, there are several criteria that could be used to meet it. I'm not saying JPAE does, but it leaves room for other reasons than just indexing.Travlinamos 21:33, 14 July 2018 (UTC)


 * NOTE TO CLOSER: I moved the article to Journal of Public Affairs Education while clearing the G6 log. Thanks, ansh 666 22:27, 15 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't really remember my logic when moving this to mainspace, but MIAR is down right now, so it makes it hard to gauge. However, merging to NASPAA would be preferable to deletion. Neutral for now. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:42, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks Headbomb. There was/is some information on the journal under NASPAA. There used to be more, but some of it was removed in the past week or so. Initially I had started with just building out the section in NASPAA, but it seemed awkward to leave it there, which is when I went to the separate page. I hadn't heard of MIAR before, but just looked it up (The journal is at: http://miar.ub.edu/issn/1087-7789). Found that it is listed in ESCI, which I hadn't realized. Travlinamos 18:04, 16 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Note To add support for this article, I have been looking at the other articles for journals in public administration and seeing what support they have. I know the journal is indexed in a number of places, only some of which are on their website with the publisher (they noted in the journal that they switched publishers earlier this year and it looks like they are still getting kinks worked out). The full list is on MIAR, but as Headbomb noted, the site now appears to be down. As soon as it comes back up, I'll add the other indexes to the list. That said, its certainly not the best article in the world and it's not the number one leading journal of all time, but after looking at the WP pages of every other journal in public administration, I think its reasonable to say that JPAE surpasses many of them and the entry is better than almost all of them Travlinamos 04:35, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a very strong argument. As for other databases, as part of WP:BEFORE I checked the Clarivate Analytics databases as well as Scopus and this journal isn't in any of them (except the rather unselective ESCI). --Randykitty (talk) 07:35, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Ah Randykitty. You are correct that the journal is not listed in SCOPUS or SSCI. It is listed in the Emerging Sources Citation Index. I specifically linked to the WP article on this because the WP article notes its importance as being "rated as among the most important on the web." The problem I am having with addressing your concerns is that you constantly present a moving target. If ESCI is not selective, then WP itself is wrong in defining it. I chose to believe WP over you. Based on the WP page for ESCI, JPAE should be included. That said, what is your absence of selectiveness based on? The process of applying for ESCI is rigorous and it takes several years to get through it. True, it doesn't have the analytics analysis that SSCI has, but that doesn't mean it isn't selective. Plenty of journals get turned down. I am truly sorry you don't like that, but either the page for ESCI needs to be edited or you need to update your understanding as to standards. For now, it meets it based on WP's own wording. Regardless, that's not why I brought the discussion on indexes back into the mix. I was responding to Headbomb and the conversation about MIAR. While I was looking at MIAR, I was also looking at what support other journals from the public administration field have for being included on WP. Based on what I know of those journals and what I see of their WP pages, JPAE is a much more important journal to the field than some of them. That said, since you reengaged in the conversation, I was hoping you would finally address my question from earlier. Given that no journal is ever going to publish a piece discussing how another journal is the best, there is no way to ever show WP:GNG for any journal according to the standard as you interpret it. So what shows it? Tell me what shows that and I'll find the support. I can add everything in the world to the article to support it, but nothing is going to convince you. Which is why I would rather you tell me first what would convince you so I can meet that, otherwise you'll just change the level again. Travlinamos 01:51, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment It may be weird to say here, but WP is not always a good source. ESCI even includes some predatory journals (I have to search for the reference) and is not what the publisher would like us to think. Also, they themselves give an important signal that ESCI is less than the other indices, because the Journal Citation Reports cover all jurnals covered in the other databases, but not those in ESCI. And despite what you think, sometimes other publications (like the Times Higher Education) do write about academic journals (see one of our GA articles, Genes, Brain and Behavior), sometimes even shortly after a journal is launched. It's rare, of course, but not unheard of. Generally however, a journal only meets GNG if they screw up royally and there are multiple sources that report on this. But if you reject NJournals, GNG is all that is left. Anyway, I repeat that OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument to use in these discussions and maintain that none of the databases in which this journal is included is selective in the sense used by NJournals. --Randykitty (talk) 08:54, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment You've just made my point for me about moving the bar. If WP is supposed to be a source of information that has been verified and researched, telling me that you're discounting it so that it fits your want to reject the submission supports my argument that you just want to move the bar so that you can reject the article. Perhaps the WP article about ESCI is wrong, but then your issue is not with the article about JPAE but rather with ESCI because the article about JPAE is meeting the standard according to what WP published. Saying we have to discount what WP already has published is like the hypocrisy of parents telling their kids to do what they say, not what they do. Plus, its bad research. Any journal anywhere would desk reject a manuscript for that flawed rationale. So, since you're discounting ESCI, we should clear a few things up because it looks like you don't have a good idea of what the index actually is. If nothing else, the journal citation reports do include information from journals in ESCI (see you enjoy independent sources, check out https://editorresources.taylorandfrancisgroup.com/what-is-the-emerging-sources-citation-index/). Journals in ESCI don't get an impact factor, but they are used when calculating the factor for others. All of the indexes in the Web of Science are. If you are concerned about predatory journals, we have another issue. There is evidence that SSCI has predatory journals in it as well. I point you back to the article in Journal of Librarianship and Information Science that came out last month that showed this. The problem is that you have to be careful when you determine what qualifies as a predatory journal. Beall's list was shut down because it turns out he included nonpredatory journals on the list. Since you call yourself a Beallian, I assume that's the list you're going by. Beall's list was just him making the reviews and decisions. Whereas Clarivate Analytics has a group of people who review and make determinations about journals. They have a vested interest in making sure they get it right, whereas was nobody but him. From a scientific standpoint, there is more validity to what Clarivate Analytics does that what Beall did. If you are throwing out journals because of the occasional journal that might be predatory has made it through, well then there are no indexes that can ever be used. If your concern is about selectivity, I would encourage you to spend time actually reading about ESCI and how they make their decisions. They are selective. Not every journal gets in, they actively kick journals out as well. They have a selection process. Literally the only difference is the consideration of journal analytics (and believe me, there is ample evidence that shows that this can be gamed as well). All that goes back to support the brief statement on the WP page that ESCI is selective. I would encourage you to follow appropriate research protocals and address your concerns with the ESCI page and then start challenging everyone else rather than going on how you are. It's inappropriate. On that note, I'm done with all my commenting on this page. WP will make its decision either way, I hope they choose to include it. If not, oh well, I have other things that I can do with my time. Travlinamos 16:16, 19 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Just have to note HAHAHA. I know I said I was done commenting, but I couldn't help but laugh that Randykitty has, in fact, gone and edited the Emerging Sources Citation Index page to fit her argument. Classy. Travlinamos 1:17, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Laugh all you want. All I did was remove puffery that was either sourced to Clarivate or not found in the source given. As I said, it's not for nothing that other WP articles cannot be used as a sources. AS for the bar, it hasn't moved. Just check previous AfDs for journal articles, ESCI has never been accepted as selective enough to satisfy NJournals. By its nature, it contains new journals that people think may become important and may make it to the other indices later. Or not, as the case might be. Being in ESCI is a strong sign of WP:TOOSOON. As for the rest, I'm sorry, but WP:TLDR applies here. I also have better things to do with my time than explain over and over again issues that have been chewed over multiple times already. --Randykitty (talk) 18:02, 19 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Pretty much what Randykitty said. The ES in ESCI is for Emerging Sources, meaning sources (journals) that librarians ought to watch for and keep an eye on, as the preliminary evidence points to these journals being on their way to become important in their fields, but aren't quite there yet. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:50, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete : I've lost count of the times the contested article has been posted up, deleted, reposted, redeleted, and so on. And I don't lose the count easily! Unless Travlinamos has some special relationship to the subject, which is perfectly alright, as long as it is openly revealed, this serving is not tasting right. Perhaps a pinch of salt would help. -The Gnome (talk) 08:13, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   12:47, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, minor journal with barely any coverage in reliable sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:58, 20 July 2018 (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.