Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journal of Religion and Film


 * 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:13, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Journal of Religion and Film

 * – ( 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) 20:06, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  20:13, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 20:17, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 20:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 20:19, 14 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:NJournals #1: "If a journal meets any one  of the following conditions, as substantiated through independent reliable sources, it probably qualifies for a stand-alone article... 2. The journal is frequently cited by other reliable sources." Why was it stated that it does not meet that? Google Scholar shows that various Journal of Religion and Film articles have been cited (see "Cited by" numbers): link. Google Books also shows that this journal has been cited multiple times: link. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 21:08, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Here is an independent mention. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 21:12, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Those are actually quite low citation counts, though. Only a handful of papers over 25. And it being Google Scholar, which indexes anything and everything, it's difficult to judge what proportion are legitimate scholarship. I'd appreciate some clarification on what Criterion 2 means, though. Surely if any journal cited by a notable journal was also considered notable, given the nature of academic publishing, we would soon be "virally" considering every journal notable? Does it not mean, "frequently cited by other [non-scholarly] reliable sources", as note #8 would seem to suggest? Joe Roe (talk) 21:21, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I suppose I'm not familiar with what "Cited by" numbers should be. The topic is the intersectionality of religion and film, so can it command as strong numbers as academic journals in physical sciences? I am sure there is not much coverage about the journal to make the Wikipedia article more than a basic description, but WP:NJournals made it seem like if it has been referenced multiple places, it is probable that it is notable. Also Berkeley's curated film resources here list Journal of Religion and Film articles far from Omaha. I can try to dig a little deeper for more solid coverage; a little hard when this journal shows up as a reference in most search results. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 11:34, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Struck out my "Keep" for now. Not finding that it meets WP:IINFO #1: "Similarly, articles on works of non-fiction, including documentaries, research books and papers, religious texts, and the like, should contain more than a recap or summary of the works' contents." While the journal has been referenced multiple times, I'm essentially not finding independent coverage especially to have the Wikipedia article be more than a recap of the journal. Would also like to grasp the cited-by/indexing criteria better as well. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:07, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: A search through Google Books indicates that this is the foremost journal in its subject area: StAnselm (talk) 21:45, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Leaning keep based on the sources above. Appears to be an important journal in the area, which is a major topic in religious studies (and I suspect, though I do not know for sure, other areas of cultural studies/the arts). Josh Milburn (talk) 21:55, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Some citations to a journal are to be expected and nothing beyond what is normal. A smattering of citations, whether in other journals (GScholar) or in books (GBooks) is to be expected. If this is "an important journal", then why is it not even in Scopus (the least selective of the major selective databases)? --Randykitty (talk) 09:36, 15 September 2016 (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.