Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journal of Young Investigators


 * 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. The main guideline-based argument given for deletion was failing the general notability guideline (GNG) due to lack of substantial, in-depth coverage of the subject. Notability of journals (NJOURNAL), however, is neither a guideline or policy. slakr \ talk / 18:02, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Journal of Young Investigators

 * – ( 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. Tagged for notability for 5 years without any good sources forthcoming. Sources present in the article are either blog posts or in-passing mentions of the journal. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 18:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per the analysis of Randykitty.Fails WP:GNG and WP:NJournals.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:20, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sources on the page when this AFD was started included academic books discussing the role of journal in scientific education, a PLOS blog article and New York Times article. That said, the article is indeed paltry.  But the AFD quesiton is not whether the article is the article is well-written and well-sourced, not whether it passes WP:NJournals, but whether sources on the topic exist (WP:NRV and WP:ARTN) that could enable it to pass WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:40, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note that same Nom had also stared and AFD on Journal of Emerging Investigators.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:40, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Your point being? I have started AfDs about dozens (perhaps even more, I don't keep count) of academic journals over the years. FYI, I also just PRODded The Journal of Network Theory in Finance and that one, too, will be taken to AfD if the PROD is removed without the addition of good sources showing notability. See also this one and this one, also created by an involved newbie. And that's just today. --Randykitty (talk) 21:04, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I like having new journals listed on Wikipedia, especiallone when they are produced by reliable institutions. (my distaste for advocacy masquerading as peer-reviewed scholarship; for pay-to-play journals, and fraudulent "journals" of so many kisds, and my outrage that so many "real" journals are for-profit knows no bounds) I do see the difficulty of sourcing articles on new journals.  But I also see a distinction between this pair of journals established and operated by academic Goo-goos as a science education/promote science in schools, and run-of-the mill start-up science journals (and within that category, I do see the difficulty, perhaps the impossibility, given so much fraud and exploitation of desperate-to-publish young researchers, of distinguishing among the many new journals that start each year except in instances where there is substantive independent coverage).E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:12, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep JYI has garnered significant attention over the years in the general press and in the academic literature not for its role in cutting-edge scientific inquiry, but for its role in the education of young scientists. Sources exist that satisfy WP:GNGE.M.Gregory (talk) 19:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete: Sorry, I'm not convinced. I'm seeing a few -- and only a few -- News hits for the subject, and always by way of a citation to something they published ... not a scrap about the subject, never mind the "significant coverage" the GNG requires.  I see that EMGregory has put a source in the lead stating that the subject is "notable" ... and the source is a blogpost.  GNG fail.  Nha Trang  Allons! 17:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * True, because it was a PLOS blog post, an article by an entering grad student apparently written for the PLOS blog on the topic: undergrads, peer review, and publishing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Per the above. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) may the force be with you 00:34, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Whether or not it's indexed in selective databases is a total red herring for this kind of journal, which is primarily an educational rather than a research project. This was discussed quite a bit in the science-education literature; see e.g. this series of articles in Cell Biology Education. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:52, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. If you feel that this does not fall under the purview of NJournals, that's fine with me, but then this needs to meet GNG, which quite obviously it doesn't. --Randykitty (talk) 07:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That link above goes to an extended feature in a well-known science education journal about the subject, obviously significant and in-depth. PLoS blogs are not just 'some guy's blog'; they're curated content supported by a major publisher with a specific interest in covering unusual publication venues. It's explicitly discussed in multiple books on undergraduate education. The JEI AfD is more of a borderline case, given that so much of its coverage traces to one event, but this is notable by any reasonable definition. Since both articles are short, I'd also consider merging and redirecting both (and other examples of the genre) to a new article at a title like undergraduate research journal. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. The feature you link to spends about 1 paragraph to this journal, not really the in-depth coverage that GNG requires. However, it does treat the subject of undergraduate research journals in-depth. I think it is an excellent idea to create an article "undergraduate research journal", discussing the topic of this type of journals in a more general way. It could include a brief list of existing journals to which this article and Journal of Emerging Investigators could be redirected. I'm a bit busy myself right now, but can help if you start the article. --Randykitty (talk) 10:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a bit oversimplified - the feature was published in direct response to JYI, and I linked that piece because it serves as the intro to an additional three pieces of invited commentary published in the same issue (though I see they are mentioned but not actually linked on that page, which is annoying). I apparently didn't get around to posting the merged suggestion on the other AfD, but that's the weak link - JEI is not an "undergraduate" journal, though it obviously comes from the same early-STEM-education context. I'll put it on the to-do list - there should be an article on the topic regardless of whether these are kept or merged. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Delete. In contrast to the related AfD of Journal of Emerging Investigators, which had two major sources directly about the journal, the coverage of this one looks shallow and incidental to stories about other subjects. I don't think it passes WP:GNG and I don't see any relevant criterion of WP:NJournals. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Doesn't look to pass WP:GNG or WP:NJOURNAL. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:25, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 22:34, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment As suggested above, I just created undergraduate research journal and merged Journal of Emerging Investigators (whose AfD closed as no consensus) there, but hadn't noticed this one was still open. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:39, 12 May 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.