Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journal of Vaishnava 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. Cirt (talk) 15:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Journal of Vaishnava Studies
Does not appear to be a notable publication. Wikid as&#169; 13:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions.  —Ism schism (talk) 14:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  —Ism schism (talk) 14:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  —Ism schism (talk) 14:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - well cited academic journal. Please see;, , , , , , , , , , and for a few of the text that cite this journal. Many prominent scholars use this journal to publish. Some examples are; Edwin Bryant . Julius J. Lipner, Francis Xavier Clooney, Kenneth R. Valpey, Ravi Gupta, and Tamala Krishna Goswami . Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.  -- Crusio (talk) 14:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I am not impressed by the Google Books links provided by Ism schism: any journal will rack up some citations. However, an academic journal only becomes notable if it gets cited significantly, and that has not been shown. Neither is it conclusive that prominent scholars publish in the journal, although if it were complete garbage, these people would stay away from it, so I agree that it is a sign that there may be some notability here. The publisher's website is not very useful and does not indicate whether the journal is included in any significant indexing services. --Crusio (talk) 15:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment-- the reason "Many prominent scholars use this journal to publish" -- is not quite true, none of the people listed are 'prominent' -- Edwin Bryant, Kenneth R.  Valpey, Ravi Gupta, and Tamala  Krishna Goswami are all Hare Krishna and not 'prominent'. Francis  Xavier Clooney is associated with their Oxford Centre and whatever he published there was a copy of what was published before. Again not 'prominent' but well known religious scholar, he is an ecumenically minded Catholic. I would say it is for the most part work of one man -- Satyaraja Dasa aka Steven J. Rosen who incidently is the creator of the article.  Wikid as&#169; 16:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Clooney has a named chair at Harvard, Lipner is a full professor at Cambridge, that's pretty "prominent". If they publish in this journal, that doesn't mean it is notable, but it does indicate that there may be something here. I agree about the relative prominence of the others. --Crusio (talk) 17:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Still in terms of Notability and inclusion, Clooney is for example on the board of International Journal of Hindu Studies and a good dozen other respectable journals, he has published once or twice in this Journal of Steven J. Rosen, but that hardly makes this Journal notable for inclusion. Do we have articles on European Journal for Philosophy of Religion, Journal of the American Academy of Religion, Journal of Hinduism? Why would we start having articles for what was a private journal? Lipner published here only because his PhD student died and Steven J.   Rosen dedicated one issue to this person. Now does an obituary by notable person  for Tamala   Krishna Goswami makes this publication notable for inclusion? Will you turn Wiki into an advertisement board for all minor Journals?  Wikid as&#169; 19:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * CommentI haven't !voted yet and I didn't say that the fact that these people publish here makes the journal notable. I only say that this may indicate that there is something more here. --Crusio (talk) 20:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Jonah Blank has also written for the Journal of Vaishnava Studies. Please see, . Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note Please note the School of Oriental and African Studies usage of the Journal of Vaishnava Studies at their website . This, along with the other sources and information provided above, proves the journal's notability. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment And how exactly does this satisfy any of the criteria of WP:N or WP:Notability (academic journals)? --Crusio (talk) 21:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply The School of Oriental and African Studies's usage of this journal, and especially its scholars participation as editors, does meet - "The journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area." Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note These two editors are Dr Simon Brodbeck and Dr Brian Black  of the religion department at the School of Oriental and African Studies. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply This journal also meets the requirement, "frequently cited by other reliable sources," as shown by the links provided above. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note Please see; Francis Xavier Clooney and, Edwin Bryant and , Ravi Gupta , Tripurari Swami , and Hector Avalos  for some examples. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You're wrong. The school's referring to some issue of the journal does not mean that reliable sources consider it to be influential in its subject area, it's just a reference, nothing else. Neither is the journal "frequently cited". The number of citations that you list would not be enough to show notability for one single researcher, let alone a whole journal. What you need here is hundreds if not thousands of citations, not a handful. --Crusio (talk) 23:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You're wrong. The School of Oriental and African Studies's is a reliable source. The fact that two of their religion scholars edited a volume of the Journal of Vaishnava Studies shows that, "The journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area." Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Going through all the Google Books returns, I could find no analysis of this topic in secondary sources. I did find this and this which are trivial mentions. The Google Scholar returns are paltry, with next to no citations for any of the pitiful 61 articles. Abductive  (reasoning) 21:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No convincing arguments to keep the article on this journal are being brought forward, so: Delete Changing to Weak keep per DGG below. --Crusio (talk) 23:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable. MiRroar (talk) 23:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Would you care to expand on your reasons? Xxanthippe (talk) 06:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC).


 * Comment Please note that there is also a different spelling . But I don't know if it changes anything.--Gaura79 (talk) 00:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * That does help. There is a Danish secondary source that says "Mest signifikant er måske det relativt nye tidsskrift Journal of Vaisnava Studies, som udkommer fire gange årligt. Bidragyderne såvel som redaktionen tæller traditionelle akademiske forskere og ISKCON-folk..." which translates as "Most significant perhaps is the relatively new journal the Journal of Vaisnava Studies, which is published four times a year. Contributors as well as the editors include both traditional academic researchers and ISKCON-people...". Unfortunately, this seems a bit weak, as it is in a footnote and uses the word "perhaps". If one more such source could only be found... Abductive  (reasoning) 05:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Note per Gaura's new info - please see; Arvind Sharma and, David Haberman , Deepak Sharma , Guy Beck , Klaus K. Klostermaier , and Wendy Doniger as some more examples. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please note that none of the indexes list this journal among tens of thousands of others (Science Citation Index, Social Sciences Citation Index, and Scopus do not list it). According to the policy a "few simple mentions in passing" (what to speak in footnotes with perhaps in Dannish etc., can not be taken as evidence that "The journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential". Web of Knowledge -- no mention. No evidence of notability in the form of impact factor assigned by the Institute for Scientific Information's Journal Citation Reports. No evidence from the Karlsruhe Virtual Catalog, or at the Zeitschriftendatenbank. In other words -- it does not satisfy the criteria in ether spelling of the name. 26991 Journals listed by Scopus include International Journal of Hindu Studies, but not this one. Wikid as&#169; 09:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. The journal has been cited a handful of times, big deal... I see no reason to change my delete !vote. --Crusio (talk) 09:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Not notable --Defender of torch (talk) 09:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Would you care to expand on your reasons? Xxanthippe (talk) 06:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC).


 * Keep  on several grounds: first, that the SOAS actually seems to have sponsored a special issue in it, which they would not have done had it not been the leading journal.  Second, that Danish ref. above. Third, this is apparently the leading Western-language journal in the subject. There seem to be 2 such: this is in about 4   times as many libraries as  the other, Journal of Śrīmanta Śaṅkaradeva Research Institute.    WoS & Scopus are so disgracefully light on the humanities that a humanities journal not being in them is meaningless--this is different from the natural sciences.      DGG ( talk ) 18:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG. Sufficient evidence of notability.--Arxiloxos (talk) 19:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep on basis of opinion of DGG. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC).
 * Would you care to expand on your reasons? Abductive  (reasoning) 06:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Same reasons as DGG. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC).
 * Then I suppose everybody else's reason is "not notable", as explained in Notability in Wikipedia? :) Abductive  (reasoning) 06:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep per Ism schism and DGG.John Z (talk) 06:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment -- the last few votes seems to be an example of one member of Article Rescue Squadron vote followed by a few yesman votes. "It seems" and the guess that this journal is leading -- is nothing but the guess. But what can you do if Article Rescue Squadron instead of improving article itself, just doing mass voting. However it is not about vote, it is about consensus based on policy. At present still NN. DGG does not seem to know, but it seems everyone just votes based on his guess. Wikid as&#169; 17:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Google news shows two results, the first one from a news site that doesn't have the article still on it, but entering the article name into Google you can find it hosted on many other sites, all crediting it as the original source. Odd.  Plenty of book coverage, and DGG seems to know what he is talking about, so I'd say its a keeper.   D r e a m Focus  06:09, 5 February 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.