Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hindawi academic journals


 * 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.  Sandstein  09:16, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

List of Hindawi academic journals

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Listcruft, just a simple copy of the publisher's own list at https://www.hindawi.com/journals/. Randykitty (talk) 04:55, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep, lists are valid Wikipedia articles and navigational aids. "Delete because it's a list" is a non-argument. Hindawi is one of the major open-access publishers, and most if not all of its publications are notable. Currently 15 out of 248 entries have articles, with an additional 10 redirecting here. This number could easily shoot up to hundreds and helps facilitate article creation of notable journals, and curb article creation of non-notable journals by providing a good target to link to. It also helps with disambiguating journal-related searches. The list has encyclopedic value, and should therefore be kept. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:01, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:04, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:04, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep, it is useful to have lists of notable journals (not necessarily all journals) published by notable publishers. If this list was deleted it would set a worrying precedent and many other similar lists e.g. Copernicus journals, Pensoft journals would also have to be deleted. There is no need to delete this list if it is a helpful navigational aid which I think it is. Metacladistics (talk) 12:55, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * There are no lists for Copernicus or Pensoft (and neither is very notable at that). In addition, I'm not sure I see how a list consisting mainly of black "links" helps in navigation... --Randykitty (talk) 13:12, 9 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. Looking at some of the journals with articles I suspect many of them wouldn't pass WP:GNG on their own. This is hardly a navigational list, it's a list of journals that exist. Ajf773 (talk) 20:22, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Most of those would pass WP:GNG. About half have impact factors by my estimates, and ~172 are covered by Scopus. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:07, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 13:26, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Rather keep. Other similar lists lack (or don't have at all) any reliable sources, and the nominated list is useful, for editors and readers. --Tamtam90 (talk) 22:48, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That's classical WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. And "it's useful" is not a particularly strong argument either. --Randykitty (talk) 02:38, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe, in other case. But, since all journals from the nominated list are "open-sourced", it could be incredibly worth and useful for our editors and readers (WP:IGNORE, probably, is more appropriate for this case). --Tamtam90 (talk) 03:07, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * So if this was a "traditional" publisher with journals only accessible through subscriptions, you would !vote "delete"? --Randykitty (talk) 10:07, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Open or not is a red herring either way. Hindawi is notable, as are most of their journals. Wikipedia is not improved by deleting the list. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:38, 14 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. Helps in identification. The journals do not mostly need separate articles, but people will come her and look for the names, and this provides at least some identification.  Hindawi is somewhat different from most of the companies whose publishing methods have been questioned; they publish some respectable journals. Personally, I do not consider them necessarily abusive.  DGG ( talk ) 20:47, 18 April 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.